Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
April Fool's Day Main Page (talk)
Current discussion

Please use this page for discussions surrounding the creation of "Did You Know" items for April Fools' Day 2016

Areas of work needed to complete the front page are:

Ground rules for this activity along with a list of participants may be found on the Main talk page.


April Fools Did You Know items should present some trivia that can be presented in a manner that is possibly unbelievable to the reader. This can be done through words or names that mean two different things, shortened names, unbelievable facts, unrelated facts, etc. The normal written and unwritten rules for Did You Know (DYK) are followed, with these exceptions...

  • April Fools DYKs are subject to the usual exclusions regarding prior Main Page appearance, but the normal rules for special occasions do not apply: the article need only have been created/expanded/brought to GA in the year immediately preceding the April 1 on which it will appear.
  • Proper capitalization, title formatting, and linking standards may be disregarded only if adhering to them will tend to give away the joke. This should be done as little as possible. (example from 2009: "... that Caviar, Chardonnay, and Hot Cocoa compete for the love of Ray J? ")

All other Wikipedia rules and guidelines still apply. Pay special attention to Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons guidelines if your hook relates to a living person.

Remember, we are trying to confuse and mislead Wikipedians and visitors, not lie to them. Keep all hooks and articles completely truthful, but outrageous. (examples from 2010: A hook claiming Dmitry Medvedev died in 2005 is ok, saying Mikheil Saakashvili died is not.)

How to review a nomination[edit]

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets the DYK criteria except, per above, the normal new enough rule (long enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines.

If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or note that there is an issue with the article or hook, please use the following symbols to point the issues out:

Symbol Code DYK Ready? Description
Symbol confirmed.svg {{subst:DYKtick}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
Pictogram voting keep.svg {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
Symbol question.svg {{subst:DYK?}} Query DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
Symbol possible vote.svg {{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
Symbol delete vote.svg {{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible

Please consider using {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page, in case they do not notice that there is an issue.


Note for nominators: Please ensure that you list your nomination on Template talk:Did you know under the correct date as well as listing it below.

Awaiting verification[edit]

Roman Tmetuchl

  • Reviewed: Austin Petersen
  • Comment: I'm not sure if the listed QPQ counts because the article creator rejected my review because s/he counted me as a "major contributor" for an edit that I made which was quickly reverted (I reviewed the article in its reverted). I can get another QPQ if needed.

5x expanded by FallingGravity (talk). Self-nominated at 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The hook about Roman Tmetuchl is sourced to a book published by the Roman Tmetuchl Family Trust. Since this is an incredible (possibly accurate, but still incredible) claim, we'll need a source that better meets NPOV and RS standards. Will hold on rest of review pending that. Also, as per recently pulled hooks, hookishness is subsumed by our need for accuracy so I'd recommend rewording this "a man named Hitler". (Not my personal preference but that seems to be the direction the Bully Brigade is charging this week.) LavaBaron (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I had a look, thinking that Hitler might just about have arranged such a thing, but couldn't possibly have done it himself - turns out it was some local man called Hitler. Hmmm... Edwardx (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Guampedia notes the author's scholarly credentials calls the book "the first research-based biography of a Pacific island leader". As for finding another source, I found this Mother Jones article which mentions one Hitler Demei who was "a felon convicted on several assault-with-a-deadly-weapon charges" (a description which fits the attempted assassin). However, the article investigates the 1985 assassination of Haruo Remeliik and doesn't mention the attempted 1970 assassination. FallingGravity 02:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with Guampedia. Is it RS? LavaBaron (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe so. Per its description page: "Content for the website was developed by a slew of professional writers, researchers, cultural specialists and other scholars who provided expertise for putting together information that could be accessed easily by a general audience." Other journals and books use it as a source. FallingGravity 06:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1 reads as if Hitler tried the assassination after Hitler himself became a congressional senator. According to the article, Tmetuchl wasn't sworn in as a senator for several months (election in 1970; took office in late January 1971); at the time of the attempted killing he had won the popular vote for his senate seat a few days before, but was not yet a congressional senator. I've struck both hooks; I'm sure a less ambiguous and more accurate wording can be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that Hitler once attempted to assassinate Palauan politician Roman Tmetuchl?
  • ALT3: ... that a man named Hitler once attempted to assassinate Palauan politician Roman Tmetuchl?
    Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've reworked the hooks to just include the basic facts. ALT2 is meant to catch the unsuspecting reader off guard, and ALT3 is more straight-forward. I figure the hook promoter can decide which is more appropriate, though reviewers are welcome to add their opinions like previous reviewers. FallingGravity 22:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    Note: I have also listed this on the April Fool's DYK page for some of the more disorienting hooks. FallingGravity 02:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT4: ... that Hitler tried to shoot a Roman in 1970? EEng 20:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, starting from scratch, including checking for all remaining ALT hooks. Please note which are appropriate for April Fool's Day and which are not. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The article seems neutral and I detected no copyright problems. I do not believe any of the proposed hooks is satisfactory. No charges were brought in this alleged assassination attempt and there is no inline citation for the event in any case. So I am proposing two new hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @FallingGravity: I will say that another QPQ needs to be done, not because of COI, but because the review was only very partial, making a comment on a hook. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svghook alt5 is in the article, sufficiently short, cited and confirmed. Also note that the website is no longer there. But it is confirmed by the other reference.
  • Symbol question.svgHook ALT6 is in the article, short enough, cited, but I can't read the book to confirm. Based on Cwmhiraeth's review, this is still waiting a good QPQ. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • FallingGravity, you need to supply a QPQ review other than the Austin Petersen one. Please do so as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm reviewing Wolfgang Hohlbein. ALT6 is rather unremarkable since English is his second language. I'm not sure how the 'Hitler assassination' hooks are missing an inline reference. FallingGravity 06:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Verified hooks[edit]

Rendra Karno

Created by Crisco 1492 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article new enough, long enough, fully referenced, and containing suitably licensed images; hook short enough, interesting enough (very neat in fact, IMO), and cited to Indonesian source. Good to go pending QPQ review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert Rinder

5x expanded by The C of E (talk) and Ferma (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 07:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg I'm not quite sure about the main hook – although they’re difficult to distinguish the source seems to apply the "British Judge Judy" description to the show rather than the person. I found ALT1 more interesting and it is clearly supported by the source, although perhaps slightly confusing to people who don't know that it refers to a TV judge – or was it the intention that people would have to check the article to find out why he is referred to as a judge when he isn't one? If not perhaps reword it to something along the lines of "that TV judge Robert Rinder is a practicing criminal barrister and not a civil judge?"
Otherwise, length and 5x expansion are fine, hooks meet length and format requirements, article is cited with no close paraphrasing issues (although the two citations to his CV should be replaced or backed up with independent sources if possible), QPQ done. January (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@January: Yes, ALT1 was intended as to draw people in to find out why the Judge isn't a judge. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I've thought about this some more, I think the main hook would have been OK if Judge Rinder had been the nominated article, but as it is Rinder's bio it should be cited that he directly has been called the "British Judge Judy". Re ALT1, I'm not saying I'd refuse to approve it as is but I found his being a reality TV judge when he isn't a real judge interesting enough that it didn't need the hook made more cryptic. January (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@January: I have made the change for ALT1. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that Judge Rinder isn't a judge? EEng 21:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we could put that forward as an April Fool's Day hook. @The C of E: would you be OK with holding this until next April Fools Day? (Appreciate it's quite a few months away). January (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@January: I'm OK with that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Approved for ALT2 for April Fool's Day. January (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)