This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
A fact from Radcliffe Telescope appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 July 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Radcliffe Telescope was the largest telescope in the Southern Hemisphere when it was completed in 1948?
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.
Overall: The article is new, the article is properly sourced, the article is neutral and plagiarism free, the hook is properly cited, the hook is interesting, and you don't require a QPQ, good to go! TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although this was presented to DYK as a new article, it's an exact copy-paste of User:Modest Genius/Radcliffe Telescope[1]. CFA simply removed my in-text notes and the empty sections before putting it in article space. Although I hadn't worked on the draft for years, I would have appreciated at least being notified if someone wanted to take it over themselves. Copying without attribution violates WP:CWW - the page should have been moved, not copy-pasted, to preserve the edit history - so this will require a WP:HISTMERGE.
The reason I didn't publish the draft myself is it's a woefully incomplete coverage of the topic. There's no mention of Grubb Parsons or the problems that were experienced during construction. My history section had only got to the 1960s, so omits the takeover by SAAO, move to Sutherland. There's nothing about the optical and mechanical designs, the current instrumentation, or current operations. Nor is there any discussion of the research performed using the telescope, historically and currently.
@CFA: why did you copy material from another editor's userspace without attribution, present it as your own, and use it to gain a DYK credit? Modest Geniustalk09:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: Yes, this is copied from a user space draft. I was looking for information on Radcliffe Observatory because I had just read something on it and was wondering if I could bring the article to GA. Then I found your draft by searching which I thought had a better chance of making it to GA. I wasn’t sure about the policy on moving someone else’s abandoned user space draft so I just copied it. I didn’t really think through the DYK nomination. I still hope to bring it to GA if that’s something you’re interested in. I’m sorry about this; I should’ve just waited and left you a message. I think the best option here is to G7 this and move the draft in if you’re okay with that. A history merge would also work. CFA💬12:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA: Thank you for the constructive response. I'll be happy to collaborate on improving the article.
There is no WP:OWNership of text in article space, but subpages in user space are conventionally not copy-pasted elsewhere without notification. WP:STALEDRAFT discourages publishing someone else's user space draft unless "the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing", neither of which applied. Yes it was an old draft, but I'm a currently active user who would have been happy to discuss the draft. We could have brought it up to a better standard before publishing and linking to it from the Main Page. But that's water under the bridge at this point.
Anyway, I don't think deletion is a good idea, that would just confuse things further. I have instead requested a history merge, using the template at the top of this talk page. We can discuss what parts of the article to work on next once that merge has been done. Modest Geniustalk18:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Histmerge complete. For the record, the {{histmerge}} tag should ideally be placed on the article itself, mainly for ease of getting links etc. (i.e. not the end of the world but it's more convenient). Primefac (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
The article is new, the article is properly sourced, the article is neutral and plagiarism free, the hook is properly cited, the hook is interesting, and you don't require a QPQ, good to go! TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)