Talk:Howe Street Stairs

A fact from Howe Street Stairs appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 June 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Howe Street Stairs are the fourth longest staircase in the United States?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Howe Street Stairs.

Wikipedia

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance).

DYK error[edit]

Note that the above DYK entry has been removed from the Main Page for being incorrect. Some sources give the stairs as the fourth longest public outdoor staircase in the US (others put it at 5th or 6th), but many, many non-public staircases (like in every skyscraper of 150m plus) are longer. Fram (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the DYK was removed by action of one editor without discussion; the statement it is "incorrect" is the opinion of one editor and not community consensus as of the datestamp. Note that no RS (as opposed to "some sources") refer to this as the "fourth longest public outdoor staircase in the US". Sources used in the article approved for DYK say "fourth longest staircase in the US". LavaBaron (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Removed staircase hook from Main Page. For "without discussion", read "without prior discussion". For "opinion" read "well-explained reasoning". For "not community consensus" read "no one but LavaBaron disagrees with the removal". And when your sources are wrong, you shouldn't use them. We shouldn't include facts in articles without reliable sources to support them, but we should exclude reliably sourced facts from articles (or the Main Page) when we have good reason to show that they are wrong. Fram (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting perspective.

read "no one but LavaBaron disagrees with the removal"

Note that I agreed with the removal in my very first comment in the thread, and reiterated my agreement four times, though other editors seemed to disagree. The rest of your perspective about whether there's community agreement seems similarly "unconventional" but this discussion is of minimal interest to me anymore. Enjoy! LavaBaron (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumably, length is measured by linear distance, not number of steps. The staircase steps referenced in this article are substantially wider than a building staircase, aligned at a much more gradual incline than those of a skyscraper, and, as noted, are intersected by several wide landings that include multi-lane streets. I think it's customary to measure length by linear distance, not quantity of geographic features. But, whatever. " This is your full "very first comment in that thread". To claim that "but, whatever" is "agreeing with the removal" seems par for the course. Your second statement said " But, like you said, I don't think there's any point in challenging removal of a hook that would have expired in a few hours anyway." That's clearly not "I agreed with the removal", but "it isn't worth my time and effort challenging it." Would love to see the "other editors" that disagreed with the removal though. Fram (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been directly told by other editors (Ritchie33) it was an agreement by me for removal of the hook. If you don't believe them, and you don't believe me, I'm not sure what you want? A notarized affidavit? With all due respect, this has simply become too strange of a discussion at this point for me to devote further time toward. I sincerely hope you find whatever it is you're looking for. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put differently, when it becomes clear that believe no longer simply believe and actually check the sources you present, you leave the discussion. That may be wise. Fram (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fram, you're right. I agree. Have a great day. LavaBaron (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]