Template:Did you know nominations/Yonglongsha


 * 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 Allen3 talk 10:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Haiyong Township, Qilong Township, Yonglongsha

 * ... that Jiangsu's pene-enclaves of Haiyong and Qilong on Shanghai's Chongming Island owe their origin to its absorption of their former island Yonglongsha?
 * ALT1:... that workers from Jiangsu stabilized and expanded Haiyong and Qilong island of Yonglongsha, only to have it absorbed by Shanghai's Chongming Island?
 * Reviewed: Gimme a minute Hamo (Dean of York) & Pope Francis's visit to the Philippines & the Sahifat of al-Reza

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self nominated at 23:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Could also restore bolding to Haiyong links, but it seems I'm a day late for technical consideration of it as a new article on its own. — Llywelyn II   23:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored bolding to Haiyong for you. The stricter 7-day rule is generally interpreted as for each article. With a multiple-article hook, you're allowed more time. Now you just need to provide an extra QPQ. -Zanhe (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! but I need a third one for the third article? Ok, will get on that. — Llywelyn II   02:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you could merge the Chongming Island nomination into this one, making it a four-article hook, if you want. But please don't move the nomination template again, it would mess up with some bots. See instruction at the top the nomination page. -Zanhe (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I won't. — Llywelyn II   02:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg All three articles are short of the minimum length requirement. Haiyong and Qilong (the list of villages does not count) are about 1,250 characters each, and Yonglongsha less than 1,100. They all need some expansion to qualify. All three articles also need extra sources. Haiyong and Qilong are mostly unsourced. Yonglongsha is better. The hook is good and interesting. -Zanhe (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gnome-face-embarrassed.svg You are quite right. Oops.
 * Haiyong expanded from Chinese wiki, Hudong Baike, and one of its local gov't sites.
 * Qilong expanded from Chinese wiki, Hudong Baike, and one of its local gov't sites.
 * Yonglongsha expanded from fellow articles and Baidu Baike. — Llywelyn II   14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok: third review done. Lemme know if the other concerns have been addressed. — Llywelyn II   05:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expanding the articles and adding the QPQ. They are now long enough. However, they still have the same referencing issues as Chongming Island. Several sections are still unsourced, and some sources used (e.g. Baike.com) are user-generated and not reliable. -Zanhe (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Still looking... — Llywelyn II   23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * LlywelynII, I've fixed the template to reflect its move from Haiyong Township to Yonglongsha (for future reference, DYK templates really shouldn't be moved, as it breaks other things; we make minor changes on the template itself), and so far as I can tell one reference each has been added to those two articles. Do you plan to address the other referencing issues that Zanhe raised about reliable sources and so on? It's been a month. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, if I can find them. There's essentially nothing in English, but I can probably find something a little better in Chinese. — Llywelyn II   18:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg None of the articles have been edited since late February, and it's been nearly four weeks without any new references being found, so I think it's time to mark this for closure. LlywelynII, if you do find and add what's been lacking before this closes, please be sure to post here so the review can resume. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg It's the Tomb Sweeping Festival, so I've got some extra time to look for something. Don't close it just yet. — Llywelyn II   01:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Hope you find what you need. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

BADALT:... that workers stabilized and expanded the island of Yonglongsha for the residents of Haiyong and Qilong in Jiangsu, only to have it absorbed by Shanghai's Chongming Island? but that makes it sound like Haiyong and Qilong aren't on Yonglongsha, which is much more misleading than the original wording. Lemme see what I can do about phrasing the exclave part instead. — Llywelyn II   14:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Ok. Should have addressed all concerns. Found gov't cite for previously unsourced grafs on subdivisions. (Current formatting's multiple links are a little messy but necessary since the Chinese gov't doesn't title or link its pages and editors would otherwise have no way to verify the page is talking about the correct place.) Found source for paragraphs dealing with Xinglongsha's absorption by the main island. Yonglongsha doesn't use Chinese wiki sources; Haiyong and Qilong could have those links removed but it's limited, concerns minor economic information, and (mho) is better to have than to remove. All grafs have cites. —  Llywelyn II   05:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the references are much better now, but I still can't find a reference for the "pene-exclave" part of the main hook. ALT1 is better referenced, but "Haiyong and Qilong's island of Yonglongsha" sounds strange, could you reword it? -Zanhe (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean, there's


 * Symbol question.svg Done. — Llywelyn II   17:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg It's been a while, but I'm happy to say that I can approve the main hook as is (except for changing pene-exclave to pene-enclave, to match the articles). The articles are new enough when nominated, long enough, and now well referenced. I've edited the articles to reduce WP:OVERLINK. The main hook is verified with inline sources. QPQs performed. No copyvio issues. Good to go. -Zanhe (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)