The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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The result was: withdrawn by Harrison49 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Chimes, Uxbridge[edit]

• ... that archaeologists found Bronze Age remains during excavation works while The Chimes shopping centre was being built?

• Reviewed: Yale Union Laundry Building

Created/expanded by Harrison49 (talk). Self nom at 23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• The hook fact checks out to an online citation (which I have added into the article where the hook is mentioned) although most of the references are to a book on the history of the town. Otherwise everything checks out and the hook is good to go. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Having had a second look, I'm not now so sure as its seems that a substantial part of the article text has been directly copied from Uxbridge#Urban development. I need help here as it's not entirely clear how much of the content is actually new. As far as I can see, the only totally new content is the hook paragraph (18 words) and the one regarding footfall (9 words). If this is so, the article should be flagged as "DYKno". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Most of the information was already in the Uxbridge article, but it looks like only one paragraph was copied and has now been changed (although it is still derived from the copied text - it was the paragraph starting with "An Odeon cinema opened"[1]). Peter E. James (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The basis for the article comes from the content I wrote in the Uxbridge article, although it has been rewritten and added to. I've also added further information to the article. Harrison49 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with the article content or its history. My only concern is whether there is enough new content to meet the DYK criteria. As I say, that's where I need help. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Using this tool, I come to a figure of just over 2400 characters when the facts from the Uxbridge article are not counted. Harrison49 (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I make the original content at Uxbridge#Urban development 912 characters (185 words) and the new expanded article (excluding infobox) 2551 characters (491 words) so there's a long way to go to reach the 5X expansion requirement. So for me it stills fails to pass. Sorry. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
          • You hadn't said you were considering this for a 5x expansion. It should be considered a new article. Other articles I have created which included some content I had written in other articles have been accepted for DYK. It would be a 5x expansion if the article had already been created, rather than the new article that this one is. Harrison49 (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the content used from the Uxbridge article has been reorganised and rewritten, therefore counting that against this article would not be fair. Harrison49 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The "rules" regarding this particular point say:

• "For DYK purposes, a "new" article . . . may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article."([2])
• "If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." ([3])

--Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • You should probably have pointed that out a little sooner. What about if I remove the content adapted from the Uxbridge article? Harrison49 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

 As there has been no change for two weeks, this nomination should now be deleted.  -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have been waiting for your response since 15 November. Harrison49 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be best if I removed the content adapted from the Uxbridge article? Harrison49 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be long enough for DYK? SL93 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I could probably expand it enough. There isn't that much that would need to be removed. Harrison49 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The minimum is 1,500 characters. It is at over 3,000 characters. It might be a simple fix. SL93 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• ALT ... that Elizabeth II and Prince Philip unveiled "Anticipation", a statue outside The Chimes, Uxbridge in June 2002?

Harrison49 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made some slight changes. To be honest, very little came from the Uxbridge article, I just used the same sources. How does it look now? Harrison49 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)