User talk:Bruxton/Archives/2023/April
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DYK for Tinder Fire
On 3 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tinder Fire, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that at the peak of the 2018 Tinder Fire in Arizona, 695 firefighters worked to contain its spread? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tinder Fire. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tinder Fire), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- 4,469 views 186.1 per hour
Your GA nomination of Passing Mother's Grave
The article Passing Mother's Grave you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Passing Mother's Grave and Talk:Passing Mother's Grave/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ppt91 -- Ppt91 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Carrbridge Packhorse Bridge
On 30 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carrbridge Packhorse Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Carrbridge Packhorse Bridge (pictured) is the oldest-known stone bridge in the Scottish Highlands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carrbridge Packhorse Bridge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Carrbridge Packhorse Bridge), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 29,302 views (1,220.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2023 – nice work! |
DYK for Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
On 30 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Arleigh Burke-class destoyers are hardened against electromagnetic pulses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Arleigh Burke-class destroyer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 13,954 views (581.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2023 – nice work! |
DYK for Erika Thompson
On 11 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erika Thompson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that beekeeper Erika Thompson uses her bare hands to scoop up bees? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erika Thompson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Erika Thompson), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 12,027 views (501.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2023 – nice work! |
DYK Barnstar
|
The DYK Barnstar | |
| I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your tireless work at DYK, especially because the quantity of what you do isn't done at the expense of quality; your reviews and promotions are thorough and thoughtful. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC) |
- @Aoidh: Thank you, it is lovely to be recognized for the backroom work. I appreciate you! Bruxton (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Underground World Home
The article Underground World Home you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Underground World Home and Talk:Underground World Home/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Underground World Home
The article Underground World Home you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Underground World Home for comments about the article, and Talk:Underground World Home/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Thanks for the review! Bruxton (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Allegory of Peace
On 4 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Allegory of Peace, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Allegory of Peace (pictured) by Jan Lievens celebrates the 1648 Treaty of Münster? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Allegory of Peace (Jan Lievens). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Allegory of Peace), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 6,826 views ( 285.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2023 – nice work! |
 | |
| my story today |
Thank you for another good one, also for Portal:Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I made an exception from my DYK abstinence for Good Friday, - see my story today. Interesting to compare a hook 2023 style to one in 2012 (see my story today). - I sang, including chorales from Bach's greatest Passion. I recently listened to one by Homilius: a discovery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I loved to see Marian Anderson and her story of protest against discrimination by singing on Easter Sunday 9 April 1939 on the Main page yesterday. Impressions of Easter here and music here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. - a few pics added, one day missing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I added, finally ;) - today's stories are about Johanna Geisler and Huub Oosterhuis, a singer and a songwriter. More here if you have time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Self-Portrait (Lievens)
On 15 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Self-Portrait (Lievens), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that X-radiographs of Jan Lievens's circa 1629–1630 Self-Portrait showed that the artist made "transformative revisions to his appearance" in the portrait? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Self-portrait (Jan Lievens). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Self-Portrait (Lievens)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- 4,432 views 184.7 per hour
Your GA nomination of Passing Mother's Grave
The article Passing Mother's Grave you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Passing Mother's Grave for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ppt91 -- Ppt91 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Paraphrasing my comment from the review page: I haven't heard from you since my last ping and I didn't really want to make any more extensive edits without your knowledge of approval (which, considering the amount of work still needed, would defeat the purpose of a GAR). I am afraid I will need to fail it for now. I really appreciate the edits you've made so far, but there are too many generalizations and repetitions and not enough focus on actual art historical content in the remaining sections to warrant a pass. I know you have been very active and passionate about adding WP:VISUALARTS content (and were able to successfully nominate multiple GAs), so I don't want to discourage you. If you would like to re-nominate this article in the future after making the necessary changes, I think it will be a much stronger nomination. In the meantime, it might be a good practice to do some GA reviews (I saw you haven't done one yet) before any more GA nominations to help lower the backlog and give back to the community. :-) Please feel free to stay in touch. Good luck with your work! Ppt91talk 22:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Amsterdam Tulip Museum
Hi there,
I saw you added the Category:2022 establishments in the Netherlands to the Amsterdam Tulip Museum page. I'm curious why because the museum was established in 2004. Coldbolt (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like a mistake I corrected it, thank you for the message! Bruxton (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
DYK for The Longevity Diet 99
On 19 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Longevity Diet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2018 book The Longevity Diet claims that a "fast-mimicking diet" increases lifespan and healthspan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Longevity Diet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Longevity Diet), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- 5,721 views 238.4 per hour
New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
| New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Still Life with Books
On 21 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Still Life with Books, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Still Life with Books by Jan Lievens is an example of the vanitas genre of painting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Still Life with Books. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Still Life with Books), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- 7,167 views 298.6 per hour
Promotion of the X. pygmaeus DYK
Can you please revert your promotion? There is an unanswered question about the image that is relevant, copyright-wise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Premeditated Chaos: I did not promote the image so no worries regarding promotion of the hooks. Bruxton (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Why? That makes no sense. Please revert yourself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think what PMC is getting at is that WP:DYKCRIT requires images in the article to be clear of image copyright violation concerns, even if it's not used in the hook, and would like that resolved before moving forward. - Aoidh (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Premeditated Chaos: Apologies, the image is not relevant since you have approved the hooks and I have verified them and checked out the two articles before promotion. If there is an image issue it will be independent of this DYK process. I do not think it serves our processes to de-promote the approved double hook. If you disagree you can ask at DYK talk. Bruxton (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think it does considering the nom is asking to use the image for an image hook. Why would we simply ignore that when we can wait a day, resolve the image question, and promote a double hook with a good quality image? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: We often iron out peripheral concerns while hooks are in preps. Regarding this image, it appears to have no issues: it has an explanation from the nominator and is properly licensed. I just did not think an aquarium fish image was interesting enough to use it in DYK. Bruxton (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: I will de-promote and leave it to another. Maybe another promotor will like the image. Bruxton (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate you self-reverting your close. I have no idea what proportion of suggested images hooks get downgraded to regular hooks - I always assumed it was very few, maybe I'm wrong - but to me it just feels unfair to outright dismiss a fairly nice image that the user seems to have gone to some effort to acquire, just because you think fish are not interesting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: no worries. Regarding hooks with images, probably one in ten get picked. There are too many images offered which is a good thing. It is all about the preference of whomever promotes. Sometime I see an image promoted by another editor and I am puzzled by the choice. Most of the time it is a good image and this fish one is a good image. Look at 2 out of my last three DYKs that had nice images. Still Life with Books was promoted without the image, and so was Self-Portrait (Lievens). The fish image is nice, and would be promotable and presents well. Just may have wait longer if you want the image promoted with the hook. Bruxton (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I was puzzled by Still Life with Books not being an image hook since it's an entire article about that specific image, but c'est la vie. While it often comes down to preference within certain parameters (like not repeating too many of the same kind of image back-to-back), promoters put in the work of assembling sets and take the set as a whole (along with the sets adjacent to that set) into consideration so they're looking at it differently than just a review of the nom itself. Unless there's an actual issue and not just a difference in preference, those decisions are typically not fussed about with too much which is a good thing even if I would make different decisions with certain hook orders. - Aoidh (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Aoidh: I guess the image was a bit dark and moody. It is very subjective in some cases. But the fish image is good, and I have already examined the hooks, articles and image so it can be promoted. For myself, I am always enthused to have a promoted hook, and getting the image slot is a great bonus. The whole DYK backroom work is time consuming but also rewarding. Bruxton (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize for getting defensive. As far as I know, I've never suggested an image at DYK and had it not be used, so I was under the mistaken impression that rejection of images was quite unusual (and therefore in this case unwarranted). I guess I've been unusually fortunate, as it turns out that statistically the proportion of accepted images is only about 45% (for this January anyway), so rejection is more likely than not. It's my misunderstanding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: no worries, I will try to promote the hooks with the image. If you are satisfied with the license. Bruxton (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize for getting defensive. As far as I know, I've never suggested an image at DYK and had it not be used, so I was under the mistaken impression that rejection of images was quite unusual (and therefore in this case unwarranted). I guess I've been unusually fortunate, as it turns out that statistically the proportion of accepted images is only about 45% (for this January anyway), so rejection is more likely than not. It's my misunderstanding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Aoidh: I guess the image was a bit dark and moody. It is very subjective in some cases. But the fish image is good, and I have already examined the hooks, articles and image so it can be promoted. For myself, I am always enthused to have a promoted hook, and getting the image slot is a great bonus. The whole DYK backroom work is time consuming but also rewarding. Bruxton (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I was puzzled by Still Life with Books not being an image hook since it's an entire article about that specific image, but c'est la vie. While it often comes down to preference within certain parameters (like not repeating too many of the same kind of image back-to-back), promoters put in the work of assembling sets and take the set as a whole (along with the sets adjacent to that set) into consideration so they're looking at it differently than just a review of the nom itself. Unless there's an actual issue and not just a difference in preference, those decisions are typically not fussed about with too much which is a good thing even if I would make different decisions with certain hook orders. - Aoidh (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: no worries. Regarding hooks with images, probably one in ten get picked. There are too many images offered which is a good thing. It is all about the preference of whomever promotes. Sometime I see an image promoted by another editor and I am puzzled by the choice. Most of the time it is a good image and this fish one is a good image. Look at 2 out of my last three DYKs that had nice images. Still Life with Books was promoted without the image, and so was Self-Portrait (Lievens). The fish image is nice, and would be promotable and presents well. Just may have wait longer if you want the image promoted with the hook. Bruxton (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate you self-reverting your close. I have no idea what proportion of suggested images hooks get downgraded to regular hooks - I always assumed it was very few, maybe I'm wrong - but to me it just feels unfair to outright dismiss a fairly nice image that the user seems to have gone to some effort to acquire, just because you think fish are not interesting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: I will de-promote and leave it to another. Maybe another promotor will like the image. Bruxton (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: We often iron out peripheral concerns while hooks are in preps. Regarding this image, it appears to have no issues: it has an explanation from the nominator and is properly licensed. I just did not think an aquarium fish image was interesting enough to use it in DYK. Bruxton (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think it does considering the nom is asking to use the image for an image hook. Why would we simply ignore that when we can wait a day, resolve the image question, and promote a double hook with a good quality image? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Premeditated Chaos: Apologies, the image is not relevant since you have approved the hooks and I have verified them and checked out the two articles before promotion. If there is an image issue it will be independent of this DYK process. I do not think it serves our processes to de-promote the approved double hook. If you disagree you can ask at DYK talk. Bruxton (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
AfD of Christopher W. Shaw
Can you please revert the close and other changes? You closed it 8 hours early. I was looking to respond to the comments. Jay 💬 08:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Jay: Thank you for the message. I am not sure what would be accomplished by leaving it open. You can always send it to AfD again, or go to WP:DRV if you think it is a WP:BADNAC. Bruxton (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is not a WP:BADNAC, just a premature close. Revert and leave it open for another 24 hours to run its course. This doesn't have to go to DRV just for that. Jay 💬 19:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Let me know what you think. I cannot start a new AfD in order to respond to the first one. Jay 💬 10:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 29 now. Jay 💬 16:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is not a WP:BADNAC, just a premature close. Revert and leave it open for another 24 hours to run its course. This doesn't have to go to DRV just for that. Jay 💬 19:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
File:10 Brock Street.jpeg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:10 Brock Street.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
DYK
Hi Bruxton, I apologize for being annoying again but I believe I clearly indicated ALT4 was my favorite hook on this nomination. I truly believe it will generate more views than the comparatively less interesting one you have chosen. May I know if ALT4 is also acceptable according to you and you could maybe use that one instead? You also promoted the less interesting hook on one of my other nominations and that did poorly in views so I will stand my ground on this.--NØ 04:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: I appreciate your work and contributions to DYK. I responded at DYK Talk. Bruxton (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd like to apologize for getting personal attack-y towards the end of the discussion there. My frustration was mostly at the other user acting smug and it got misdirected at you. ALT4 was a cool hook to me because it felt like the right way to wrap up my work on several articles for this album. Anyways, you're the boss and if you don't think it's good enough then it has to go. Although if there is any way to use a version of ALT4 that links to both the song articles I would still appreciate it. Regardless, thanks for everything that you do to keep the DYK process running smoothly.--NØ 14:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Would you at all be interested in using ALT4? Because I can take out some time to think of alternate phrasings if that's something you're willing to consider.--NØ 17:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Changing the hook or reworking it would entail an approval from those who were troubled by it. So we would likely have to de=-promote the hook and go back to the nomination. You have archived the DYK talk page discussion - if you had not, we could have reworked the hook there while the other hook was promoted, then swapped hooks. Alternatively you can start another DYK talk page discussion and the editors will assist with a reworking.
- "... that a Meghan Trainor song going viral on TikTok prompted her to return to doo-wop on her latest album, which produced another viral track on the platform?"
- I think this hook takes into account all of the criticisms from other users at WT:DYK. I am scared to start another discussion at that talk page so I was hoping we could get this sorted here. It would be ideal if you could change the hook at the Prep page directly considering the disaster my last attempt to start a discussion there was.--NØ 18:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: There are too many others involved with the hook. The nomination's reviewer for instance. I am not able to approve the hook by myself. What I try to avoid when promoting the reviewed hooks is anything that would get the hook de-promoted or called out as an error. I found the hook that I promoted was succinct and interesting. As you read at DYK talk the other hook was confusing. Bruxton (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think that makes perfect sense. I've taken your advice and proposed it on the talk page with pings to the users originally troubled by it. Apologies for going back and forth on that and hopefully if they give a yes it should be good.--NØ 19:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- (chiming in:) User:MaranoFan, you may have noticed a trend on DYK towards few links, ideally only the bolded one. Why, I don't know. I struggled and found it hard, so stepped back, doing only occasional hooks (vs. practically every day), try to comply with the idea not to promote knowledge about some context also, - and life is easier. The hook I remember today, with 5 extra links, would be impossible today. - User:Bruxton, thank you for promoting the Oosterhuis hook (same set). He died recently and I guess some of our readers would like to see how he looked when he wrote the hymn. Any chance for the image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I can de-promote the hook if you like and wait for another promotor who may promote the image with the hook. Let me know if that is what you want. Bruxton (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's not what I want ;) - I like to keep things simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I can de-promote the hook if you like and wait for another promotor who may promote the image with the hook. Let me know if that is what you want. Bruxton (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- (chiming in:) User:MaranoFan, you may have noticed a trend on DYK towards few links, ideally only the bolded one. Why, I don't know. I struggled and found it hard, so stepped back, doing only occasional hooks (vs. practically every day), try to comply with the idea not to promote knowledge about some context also, - and life is easier. The hook I remember today, with 5 extra links, would be impossible today. - User:Bruxton, thank you for promoting the Oosterhuis hook (same set). He died recently and I guess some of our readers would like to see how he looked when he wrote the hymn. Any chance for the image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think that makes perfect sense. I've taken your advice and proposed it on the talk page with pings to the users originally troubled by it. Apologies for going back and forth on that and hopefully if they give a yes it should be good.--NØ 19:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: There are too many others involved with the hook. The nomination's reviewer for instance. I am not able to approve the hook by myself. What I try to avoid when promoting the reviewed hooks is anything that would get the hook de-promoted or called out as an error. I found the hook that I promoted was succinct and interesting. As you read at DYK talk the other hook was confusing. Bruxton (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Arijit Singh About info
Hi Bruxton,
Arijit Singh Recently won 1 more Filmfare Awards and the total is Seven. So Please add this about info  Rm7078290 (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
18 hour DYK proposal
Had I known about your proposal in time, I would have been a supporter. I am wondering how you decided to propose 18 hour run time. That means that you were proposing 9.33 sets/week. Is that the average that we are doing right now? We know the average is somewhere between 7 and 14, but I would have guessed 16 hour run time (10.5 sets/week) would be closer to the operating average. Do you know what the average number of sets is in the long run?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: I think they keep the 12-24 for bookkeeping reasons. I just find it hard to keep up when we are in this 12 hour rotation. So I guess 18 is perennially suggested and perennially rejected. Bruxton (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not my question. Do you know how many sets we run a year. It is obviously between 365 and 730. I thought someone like you would know the number. I bet somewhere there is a list of how many sets were run each year. There should be such a list at least.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have heard a 500 estimat from @Schwede66:. But maybe @Theleekycauldron: has an exact figure. Bruxton (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- My figure was just a guess, derived the same way as Tony did above. Schwede66 19:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- 18 hours would have put us at 486.7 sets in a year. 16 hours would have put us at 547.5. Honestly, I would have guessed we ran 550-600 sets per year.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: 16 is interesting. Tough for us to get agreement however. Bruxton (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 and TonyTheTiger: in 2022, we ran ~515 sets; in 2021, it was ~610; in 2020, it was ~572. We're on track to run ~522 in 2023. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: That is good information. We ran the most hooks during Covid, that makes sense. Bruxton (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 and TonyTheTiger: in 2022, we ran ~515 sets; in 2021, it was ~610; in 2020, it was ~572. We're on track to run ~522 in 2023. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: 16 is interesting. Tough for us to get agreement however. Bruxton (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- 18 hours would have put us at 486.7 sets in a year. 16 hours would have put us at 547.5. Honestly, I would have guessed we ran 550-600 sets per year.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- My figure was just a guess, derived the same way as Tony did above. Schwede66 19:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have heard a 500 estimat from @Schwede66:. But maybe @Theleekycauldron: has an exact figure. Bruxton (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am sure 18 hours is rejected for bookkeeping, and I agree with that. It's tough enough to say today which day a hook ran, because often archive day is not equal to running day. That would be worse with 18 hours. - When I got to know DYK (in 2009), they ran four sets per day, every day, of six hooks. And managed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Gerda Arendt:, wow, must have had more participation then. Blink and you miss it. Bruxton (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- User:Bruxton, when WP was starting out a lot of new pages needed to be created. Someone here can tell you the Million milestones, but we went from 1 million to 5 or 6 million in a shorter period of time than it will take to get from 6 million to 7 million articles. We might not see 7 million until 2030 or so. Because so many new pages were being created, DYK was busy. After a while the new pages slowed enough that we began to welcome new GAs to the fold here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Gerda Arendt:, wow, must have had more participation then. Blink and you miss it. Bruxton (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not my question. Do you know how many sets we run a year. It is obviously between 365 and 730. I thought someone like you would know the number. I bet somewhere there is a list of how many sets were run each year. There should be such a list at least.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I too remember when we tried to run 4 sets a day and you really never knew when they would update. Personally, I think we would find our selves somewhere between 486.7 and 547.5 sets in a non-COVID year. We could bounce between 16 hour runs (3 every 2 days) and 18 hour runs (4 every 3 days). This might increase main page viewership, because you would have to check back for updates at times other than 12 and 24. I concede consensus on something like that would be a long shot, but that is what I think would be best. It would be more equitable in the sense that all hooks would be on the main page about the same amount of time. Also, on themed days, we could have 32 or 36 hours of main page hooks for different parts of the world experiencing their 24 hours of a special day at different times.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
DYK for HMS Martin (1910)
On 30 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Martin (1910), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that HMS Martin was part of the Grand Fleet of the Royal Navy in the First World War, but after the war was sold to be broken up? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Martin (1910). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Martin (1910)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- 3,408 views 284.0 per hour
DYK for Fédération Française de Catch Professionnel
On 30 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fédération Française de Catch Professionnel, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that 1924 Gold Medal Olympian Henri Deglane (pictured) co-founded a professional wrestling promotion in France which featured catch wrestling? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fédération Française de Catch Professionnel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fédération Française de Catch Professionnel), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- 1,684 views 140.3 per hour