- The following 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 Allen3 talk 09:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Chihiro number edit
- ... that the Chihiro numbers form a sequence that grows faster than any conventional mathematical function?
- ALT1: ... that recursively finding Chihiro numbers can quickly produce some of the largest numbers in mathematics?
Created by Wjxb (talk). Self nominated at 03:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC).
New article, and the article's sources check out.:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Partched (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 April 2014
I'd suggest a different hook, just due to the fact that more people enjoy movies than math
- ... that the Chihiro numbers inspired the name of the main character from Spirited Away?
The different hook citation is a dead link. I cannot find any other online reference saying this either. So Different hook is not confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- The article is also big enough and no plagiarism detected. However we do need to have more citations. For example the Properties section has no inline citations at all. Probably this can be addressed by repeating one or more of the existing refs. The proposed hook or alt1 hook are in this section, so are also uncited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- The existing sources work as citations, and have now been addressed. I didn't know if mathematical details that could be verified without sources needed to be sourced. Apologies. Wjxb (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- The relevant policy would be in WP:OR. It would allow counting something or converting from one unit to another, but claiming a proof is obvious when it would be outside the capability of 99% of our readers is not enough! I will check the new work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
the original hook fact is confirmed, but I can't read it in the supplied reference. For ALT1 there is a bit of a problem, as the article uses the term iterate rather than recursive, and so would need more explanation. But it's good to go with original hook. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there anything more that I need to do before it moves to the queue? Apologies, I'm a bit new here. Wjxb (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- No it is already approved for the first hook. But if you can get a copy of the reference to me I may be able to convert it to a green tick. The next step is for someone to close the nomination and put the hook into a prep area. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there anything more that I need to do before it moves to the queue? Apologies, I'm a bit new here. Wjxb (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- The existing sources work as citations, and have now been addressed. I didn't know if mathematical details that could be verified without sources needed to be sourced. Apologies. Wjxb (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I realise this is closed but it needs to be noted that the key sources do not exist and that this was a blatant hoax. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)