Template:Did you know nominations/Brock Bond, Casey Bond

Brock Bond, Casey Bond

 * ... that the San Francisco Giants drafted Brock Bond when they meant to draft Casey Bond?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Howard Hille Johnson, Template:Did you know nominations/2000 UEFA Cup semi-final violence
 * Comment: Casey Bond, as of the creation of this template, is just a hair under 5x. In case I can't finish off a full 5x, IAR?

Created/expanded by Muboshgu (talk). Self nominated at 23:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC).




 * Symbol possible vote.svg On its way, but needs (as indicated) further expansion. I cleaned up both a bit as well.  Please address the refs that need to be turned into inlines, and flag when the full expansion is done.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed on my watchlist that a review was done. Provided one QPQ. Lemme check them out again and finish this off. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Casey Bond is 5x expanded, and refs are no longer bare. Plus I provided a second QPQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I also added an image. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Casey Bond, by my calculation, is still only a 4.5x expansion. Are you sure you counted correctly?  If so, what were your calcualtions?  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was 850 B as of late February, and is 4357 B now. I'm including the additions by the IP that came right before my expansion, which were coincidentally the day before I started my expansion. I guess I should give the IP credit for his/her part of the 5x. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are basing that on bytes? The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count or bytes. Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bytes, characters, in this case it's all the same. I use DYKcheck, which gives the number in bytes. This does not include any wiki markup etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Confirming that according to DYKcheck, a 5x prose character expansion has been achieved on Casey Bond, starting from March 8, the day this nomination was submitted. Review of both articles should proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I performed a prose character count. I see 1,018 characters on March 7, and 4,430 characters ten days later on March 17. Which is not a 5x prose increase. Can we have a third opinion?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there weren't any edits on March 7, I'm wondering whether you're including the results of the six edits made between 00:05 and 00:14 UTC on March 8 by the same IP in your "before" count. Those edits increased the prose count by close to 200, but since they were on March 8, they should count as part of the expansion total. (Indeed, they'd count if they'd been made in the five days before March 8.) The basis edit—where the expansion is reckoned from—should be the final one from five days before the March 8 nomination: the edits on March 3, if there had been any, and since there weren't, the last edit immediately before then, which is the final March 1 edit. I got 817 when I copied the appropriate text from that version into Word and used its character count function, and 818 when I used your prose counter. For the March 8 at 00:14 UTC version, I get 1,015 from your character counter, virtually the same as your 1,018 ... but, as noted, this is not a valid point for a "before" count. For the final count, your counter gives 4,430, and DYKcheck a more conservative 4,357, both of which are over a 5x expansion of 818. If the choice of which should be the basis edit isn't the issue, we can naturally ask for a third opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm counting the expansion by nom. Over the article before nom expanded it.  I'm excluding things such as tables of contents and headers and refs -- all of which show up in "bytes" calculations (which nom used as his calculation).  None of which are prose.  I've supplied diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I understand what you're using. So far as I know, however, there is no requirement that the nominator be responsible for the entire 5x expansion, just that the 5x has been done within the most recent five days of the nomination date. Can you point out the rule that restricts the 5x to the nominator, or even to the starting basis being immediately prior to the nominator's first edit? I'm unable to find it when I look. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Issue 1) the measuring-by-bytes is a flawed approach. It counts refs and headers and contents, all of which are non-prose.  Issue 2) As this form itself states, a few lines from the top, "Created/expanded by [nom]".  Issue 3) As the rules say, "This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." Bottom line) I'm happy for a third party to come in and take a look, and if they are happy with this expansion then so am I.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Using the DYK check tool I'm getting 5x (about 200 characters more than 5x, actually). Originally 850 characters (5x850=4250), now at 4357 characters. I see no reason this should not pass for length, although the IP should be credited. 5x is counted in the 5 days before nomination, so the IP's contributions are also worth it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I'm fine -- as long as the IP is credited, if their contributions are necessary to reach 5x.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added above. Want to leave the tick? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)