Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943)

Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943)

 * ... that the Imperial Japanese Navy considered completing the heavy cruiser Ibuki as a high-speed replenishment oiler in 1943, but decided to convert her into a light aircraft carrier instead?
 * Reviewed: Free!

5x expanded by Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Self nominated at 04:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC).


 * The article is fine, but requires another 17,525 characters to make a 5Xs expansion from the previous maximum. If you want a WP:IAR promotion, I anticipate the DYK community might be amenable, but I do not feel comfortable granting it, especially as the article is not quite 5 times the size it was when you began expanding it on April 25. Symbol delete vote.svg -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Look again, 29 March is the benchmark for considering 5x, not 25 April. Page size was 1781 B then and it's now 8211 B or 297 words vs. 1377. 700 characters short vs 17,525.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked at that, but DYK is done from the previous maximum, which this article is 17,525 characters short of. I appreciate that if you count the start as March 29, it is 700 characters short, which is why I recommended asking the community on WT:DYK, but it was still nominated almost a month late.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 23:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that you've seriously misunderstood how to compute the expansion. The timer starts when I began expansion and the size is measured from the last change before that expansion was begun, regardless of how big the article has been in the past. And I completed the expansion is under the 5-day limit, not a month late.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are two things in play here. First is the addition of a large chunk of characters on March 29, which was retracted 5 minutes later. Under the circumstances, I'd be inclined to treat that as having happened in error, and therefore should not be counted, but Gilderien definitely has a basis for pegging the expansion as starting as of that large addition. However, before the various edits on March 28 and 29, the article had 2272 prose characters (February 26), and I think the expansion needs to start from there, not the 1781 it had after some material was excised shortly before the quick expansion and reversion. With a 2272 baseline, the goal becomes 11360, not the 8905 it would be from 1781. In any case, the article does not currently qualify under any measure, as it has only 8211 prose characters at last check, which is, as Gilderien points out, not enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand why the article's size on 26 February even matters as that doesn't seem to meet the "previous state" of the expansion rules, but I guess that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The basic problem is that it does not meet the 5 xs expansion rule regardless of where you count the expansion as starting. However, as I suggested, if you propose an exception at WT:DYK, I would not be surprised if they was consensus to do so.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)