Template:Did you know nominations/Idiom dictionary
- 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 Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (natter) @ 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Idiom dictionary
[edit]- ... that the first major idiom dictionary of American English was created for deaf people?
- Reviewed: Fish soup bee hoon
5x expanded by Colonel Warden (talk). Self nominated at 12:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC).
I guess this has been nominated as a 5x expanded article. The current size is around 5000 chars, while it's earlier version was around 3.4k chars. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- When it was nominated for deletion on the 15th, the prose text was 600 chars by my count (ignoring templates and other structural stuff). On the 16th, the prose text was expanded to 3597 chars. 3597/600 = 5.995. If that's not enough, on the 21st, it was expanded further to 5348 chars. Note also that the AFD has now been closed as keep, so that's out of the way. Warden (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Warden's numbers check out, except 5348 chars includes table of contents? Not a big deal. CallawayRox (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Present size of the article: – 5094 chars
- Size on 4 September 2012 – 3834 chars
- To satisfy the criteria, it must be expanded to 15k chars at least. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can we have another opinion on this, please - it doesn't sound right to go back so far to an earlier version of the article which didn't work out and was then stubbed. In the meantime, I'll see about adding more content. Warden (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:DYKSG says " Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion." (emphasis mine). As the existing article at the time of expansion was this, and Warden was not the one who removed the other text, I think this should be accepted for length. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can we have another opinion on this, please - it doesn't sound right to go back so far to an earlier version of the article which didn't work out and was then stubbed. In the meantime, I'll see about adding more content. Warden (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Warden's numbers check out, except 5348 chars includes table of contents? Not a big deal. CallawayRox (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Offline hook accepted in good faith. GTG —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)