- 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
VimpelCom Ltd. edit
- ... that VimpelCom was the first Russian company to list its shares on the New York Stock Exchange?
Created/expanded by Ghirlandajo (talk). Self nom at 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough, no close paraphrasing issues. Hook is supported by inline reference. I did a bit of copy-editing to fix some minor issues. There remains one styling issue though, with the extensive use of WP:Bare URLs. I think it'll be good to go once the references are expanded. --Zanhe (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are too many essays in Wikipedia space to count, and the essay cited above is just one of them. DYK used to be the place to celebrate new articles on important subjects, but it now favors all things petty. Wikipedia should be ashamed for not having an article about one of the world's biggest telecommunication companies. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're overreacting. I agree that Wikipedia needs an article about Vimpelcom. All I was asking was to fix the bare URLs, which are frowned upon by most experienced editors. It'll take five or ten minutes max, probably less than the time you spent ranting. --Zanhe (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- You need to fix your bare URLs. Secretlondon (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It's your lucky day. I decided to try out the reflinks tool today, and used VimpelCom as a guinea pig. It worked very well, took just a minute to fill out all references except one, which I did manually. So next time you don't feel like going through the chore of filling out the refs, give reflinks a try rather than littering the pages with bare URLs. --Zanhe (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
