Template:Did you know nominations/Norm (social)

Length

Norm (social)
Created/expanded by Breezybri08 (talk). Self nom at 04:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that repeated violation of social norms may lead to you becoming an institutionalized deviant?


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Article has not been expanded fivefold in the last five days: 1313 words before expansion, 2299 words after expansion started. 4266 words needed. — ΛΧΣ  21™  06:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify.... Expansion is measured in prose characters, not words. This went from 7,969 characters to 14,504, so another 25,341 characters would be required for a five times expansion. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  07:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks Mandarax for the correction: 25,341 characters would be required. — ΛΧΣ  21™  15:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So just to clarify, it does not matter how much reorganization I did or how much I added in terms of content. I rewrote almost all of the article, so although the number of characters did not increase by a factor of five, the quality and the actual words changed dramatically.  Is it true then that it must purely be a 5x increase in characters in order to qualify for a DYK submission?  Wouldn't that mean that an article already extremely long could not get nominated for submission?  I'm just a little confused about why it would be based on expanded number of characters rather than actual changes to the document. Please help me understand! Thanks!! User:BreezyBri08
 * The answer to your question is at Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. Simply put, we do not have the time or resources needed to debate how much an article has improved from a quality standpoint. --Allen3 talk 11:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a little comment. As this is this user's first nomination, can we WP:IAR and approve the hook? The user may understand how rules work from now on... — ΛΧΣ  21™  15:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I think the consensus of recent discussions is that 5x expansion is not something we would normally ignore all rules on. I understand this is a new user, and certainly some great work has been done on the article (which hopefully the user will continue to bring to other articles), but by previous calculations this isn't even a two-fold expansion, so I think we should close as unsuccessful. Moswento talky 11:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)