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)
Micky.jpg
Current discussion
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005

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.

Rules[edit]

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.

Nominations[edit]

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]

Caterpillar inflation

Created by Geni (talk). Self-nominated at 03:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article is new and long enough. It is neutral, uses inline citations and I cannot see any copyright violations. The hook is good, and cited with an offline source (I managed to find the relevant passage online though). QPQ has been done. I will never look at a preserved caterpillar in the same way again. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk 12:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I was asked to try and provide an April Fools hook for this nomination, so here is one possibility:
  • ALT2: ... that caterpillar inflation is a gut-wrenching process? Gatoclass (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • How about process rather than spectacle?©Geni (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Geni, because the caterpillar ends up being a spectacle, ie a specimen to look at. Gatoclass (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
But if you think that's too opaque, we could go with "process" I guess. Gatoclass (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The article is more about the process than the end result.©Geni (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I changed it to "process". On reflection, I don't think "spectacle" works the way it was intended anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Approving ALT2, striking the other hooks and replacing JuneGloom07's tick. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Album primo-avrilesque

Negroes fighting in a cellar at night
Negroes fighting in a cellar at night
  • Comment: I am nominating this for an April Fools hook on behalf of the article creator.

Created/expanded by Theramin (talk). Nominated by Gatoclass (talk) at 07:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

Dance of drunks in the fog
Dance of drunks in the fog
  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. However, the second paragraph under "Background and reception" lacks a citation, per Rule D2. I prefer ALT0; however, the hook fact needs some kind of inline citation in the article. All images in article freely-licensed. A QPQ is needed for this nomination; I'm happy to submit one of mine: Template:Did you know nominations/Wayzata Bay Center. Yoninah (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoninah. I took a look at the uncited paragraphs in this article myself before nominating it, and decided that the works of art themselves qualify as cites, because the works of art and the artists are given in-text. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following your reasoning. Are you saying that because there's an image of Negroes fighting in a cellar at night on this page that this verifies that (1) Allais painted it and (2) it's in the monograph? Also, what about the cite for some of the information in the 2nd paragraph under "Background and reception"? Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The majority of the citations are from the album itself, not from other sources, which is extremely problematic. Also, the article mentions the connection with Kazimir Malevich's Black Square but doesn't tie in with the recent controversy around that work, which should be a given b/c of the painting's title.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe the sources describe them as prints, not paintings (well, apart from the original white one, which is a blank piece of paper, although I believe the frame in the album is printed; I've not inspected an original: perhaps they are all just coloured bits of paper stuck in a book; the cited sources don't say: do you know any better?). Manifestly they are all included in the album, a scanned copy of which is available online from the BnF, but others are available in other libraries to judge from WorldCat. If you doubt the evidence of your own eyes, or the archival verisimilitude of the French national library - cheese-eating surrender monkeys that they are - the prints are also mentioned in many of the cited sources, and I've added some more sources just now.

This article is not about Malevich's Black Square, but that work is mentioned in some of the relevant sources. None of the cited sources mention any so-called "recent controversy", which is not relevant to a book published in a different place, 20 years earlier.

This tedious tick-box approach, typified by the demand for yet more tiny blue numbers littering the article like some deranged form of footnote acne, is why I have not bothered with DYK for the odd article or two I have written or expanded for something like 5½ years. (Still pretty happy with that article, happy days.)

I'm done here. Either get over whatever you find "extremely problematic" with this article and approve it, or don't. Your choice. I won't be coming back. Theramin (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I said extremely problematic b/c I don't believe you have enough citations independent of the subject itself for what will be a controversial DYK. The citation I gave above (repeated here) specifically mentions the album primo-avrilesque and ties it in with both Kazimir Malevich's Black Square and racism. Your call whether to consider adding this but I believe the article is lacking without more citations and context.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah, Theramin has added some additional cites, care to look again? Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Vaginal steaming

Or worse. EEng 17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Created by Hap400 (talk), Ritchie333 (talk), Amortias (talk), Drmies (talk), Tryptofish (talk), EEng (talk), and LadyofShalott (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 17:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New and long enough, QPQ done by nominator, all non-lead ¶ with citations, copyvio checks reveal no problems ([1], [2], [3]). The only matter is that the source does not state that Paltrow was personally "advised" by anyone or any entity regarding this matter. The news article simply refutes Paltrow's notions. North America1000 05:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The nom was made to meet deadline, hooks are still being considered. See the article's talk page. EEng 09:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I assume this is deliberately allowing our demograph of teenage boys to go unchallenged  :) How about this for a supplementary hook? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This is going to be our best April 1 ever! [4]. I take it you'll be pitching in on the tampons – in fact, maybe we can get that in for April 1 too! O joy! O ecstacy! EEng 23:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, tampons are simply hilarious. LadyofShalott 00:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, if the tampons don't work out we can always withdraw them. EEng 01:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Gwyneth Paltrow advocates "sorcery for your vagina"? EEng 02:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ... that vaginal steaming jives with "neoliberal, postfeminist and healthist ideologies, colliding with pervasive sociocultural understandings of the female reproductive body both as core of womanhood and as 'embodied pathology'"?
    • OK that's not as catchy. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Jive indeed. I think you mean jibe, Your Arbship. (See also Wikipedia:Diffusing conflict.) EEng 04:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Says who? Drmies (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems the alts I proposed on the article talk page didn't get copied over to the nomination page, so here they are:

  • ALT3: ... that women have been advised to "consciously uncouple" from vaginal steaming?
  • striking ALT4 as potentially implying that it is sometimes but not always credibly recommended. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Before it happens, my recommendation is that we do not approve a hook, here, that takes aim at a living person - she may have wrote a blog that is wrong but let's avoid this aspect. (Also, if you look at the article, that mention just hangs there, in a manner that suggests it is not really important to the topic at all). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Alanscottwalker, I have struck both hooks referring to Ms. Paltrow. The original hook is not an April Fools hook in any case, and I think ALT1 rather gives the game away with regard to the "sorcery". Gatoclass (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT5: ... that "sorcery for your vagina" may have the unfortunate side effect of second degree burns? Since I've struck several others, it seemed only fair to suggest an ALT myself. I think this one could still work as an April Fool hook. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the word "universally" from ALT4 in response to the objection that it wasn't strong enough, and unstruck it accordingly. But we still need somebody to verify the remaining hooks, and there's only a day or so to go before April Fools now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Proposing ALT5a. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


LaVar Ball

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Plered
  • Comment: There are many interesting hooks possible for this article. Let me know if you have suggestions. Note that ALT2 is an April Fool's Day hook.

Created by TempleM (talk). Self-nominated at 22:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @TempleM: As much as I would like to clear ALT2 for AFD, I do not believe I can at the moment as the article doesn't specifically make the claim of being better than Michael Jordan. I think it would need to be made clearer in the article to pass extra inspection, even if it is for April fools day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The C of E - Tweaked the hook to something found in the article. TempleM (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The C of E, TempleM, this article has been remarkably unstable, both before being semi-protected for a week on March 17 and between the protection coming off at 15:46 on March 24 and being reinstated at 19:20 that same day. Since the current protection ends late on March 31, I think we can expect the article to be quite unstable, which is a problem if this runs with ALT2 on April Fools' Day. Also, I have trouble with the "would be" claim; even running on that day, I would expect the twist to be that it was some other Michael Jordan, rather than Wikipedia's voice backing up Ball's ludicrous claim. Even "would have beat" (which is the actual claim in the article) wouldn't work in Wikipedia's voice. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset I have tweaked the hook again so that the reader knows that Ball claimed this and didn't actually defeat Michael Jordan. Will this still sound like an AFD hook? It sounds almost exactly like the original hook but with less detail. TempleM (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • TempleM, I don't think ALT2 does sound like an AFD hook, but then I didn't think it did the first time. So I think it shouldn't be run then but instead as a normal hook, and should also wait until the article has achieved stability. I'd be interested to hear what others think about these two points. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This page should be deleted. This person is not significant in any way, he's the father of a college basketball player, he never played professional ball. Did this guy write his own page or was this a UCLA fan that wrote it? Confused as to why this hasn't been selected for deletion yet? 68.13.138.185 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I can assure you that I am not LaVar Ball nor am I a UCLA fan. But if you have been following sports in the last few weeks, Ball has been dominating the headlines. He has been in the national spotlight for a year and in the last month or so he has received an incredible amount of coverage. He was also a professional football player earlier and even though that alone may not warrant notability, there are countless reliable sources about him and his life. A side note: this article is also one of Wikipedia's most read articles in the last week or so, meaning that it is very well needed. TempleM (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Verified hooks[edit]

Trans-Universal Zombie Church of the Blissful Ringing

  • Reviewed: Helen Boyle
  • Comment: Although this is a totally serious hook, it would perhaps make a decent choice for April 1 or some similar occasion.

Created/expanded by Tone (talk). Self-nominated at 18:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Hook is over 200 characters. Yoninah (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Added some shorter alternatives. Tone 19:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you! Ready for full review. Yoninah (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. ALT1 and ALT2 hook refs verified and cited inline. ALT3 does not have an inline citation, so if you want to use it, please provide one. QPQ done. I think it's an excellent idea to move this to the April Fools Day holding area. My choice for April Fools is ALT1, without the image. Please advise if you also want ALT3 considered. Yoninah (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Inline citation added but I think Alt1 is the best in any case. Will you move it to April 1 or shall I? Thanks! Tone 18:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you. ALT3 foreign-language hook ref AGF (although I checked it with Google Translate) and cited inline. However, we both agree on ALT1, so I'm striking the other hooks to make it clear to the promoter. Also, I recommend leaving out the image. ALT1 good to go. Moving to April Fools Day holding area. Yoninah (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: I've removed the image, so it won't be available for selection, and removed the struck-out "pictured" from the remaining hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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)/
  • ALT2 is fine as a hook, however, the article says he is a judge, while later stating that he actually isn't, so that is a discrepancy that I think needs to be cleared up. Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • A bit of vandalism that got missed, the line should have said barrister but someone mucked around with it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

John Outhouse

  • Comment: This is intended for the April Fools Day DYK— hence it has been several months since I actually wrote the article.

Created by Margalob (talk). Self-nominated at 17:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment: this seems to be too late for DYK (7 days) and also too early for April Fool (6 weeks), sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg The April Fools Day rules state that an article need only be created in the year immediately preceding the April 1 on which it will appear. That means you should have nominated it as soon as you created it and asked for it to be considered for the April Fools Day set. Unfortunately, this article does not meet DYK's newness requirement of nomination within 7 days of creation. Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Surely we won't allow ruleboundedness to consign such a worthy hook to the crapper? EEng 06:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Actually, the rules for April Fools specifically allow for this situation, if you read them closely. The article merely needs to have been create/expanded/made a GA at any point since the previous April Fool's Day (in this case, 1 April 2016). It can be nominated at any time during the year, provided that it meets all the other GA criteria; there is also some leeway in the hook, per those same rules. The seven-day requirement does not apply here (the description about reviewing specifically excepts the "new enough" rule). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Length and hook for AFD OK. As is indeed correctly pointed out above, as it's an April Fools Day hook the length requirement is extended and it was made within that extended timeframe. A wee QPQ is not needed. No close paraphrasing. Good to go for April Fools Day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I think the hook is going to have to be refactored so that there aren't two separate bold links to the same article, but I'm not sure how that would best be done. Leaving it to the promoter. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the original hook could use a bit of a tweak. Suggested alt:

1953 Alcoa Aluminum advertisement

.
.
  • Reviewed: Xiker
  • Comment: For April Fools Day

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 10:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is long enough and new enough. First sentence is not supported by the citation - the source says that the claim was by Del Monte. The article talks about the 50s, but the source about the 60s. Bit wary about the "description" section as the underlined woman is not mentioned in the source. Is slideshare a reliable source? Not sure from the sources given what the ad has to do with "Mad Men". Some sources which I can't access, not that this is disallowed. Didn't notice any copyvio or plagiarism. Hooks are reasonably sourced and short enough, although I can't help but notice that both of them are about the content of the ad, rather than the social commentary that is the bulk of the article. QPQ is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have moved one of the sources that show the full ad to the first sentence so it makes it clear its for Alcoa. The only reason people think it was Del Monte was because that brand was on the bottle. The word "woman" is underlined in the source by looking at the picture in the source (though there's one in the article to make it easier!). The Mad Men references are references to the TV programme based around an advertising agency from that time where stereotyping of women was commonplace. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol voting keep.svg Seems like this is better now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Londonderry Borough Police

5x expanded by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg New enough and confirmed expanded 5x, QPQ done, all ¶ with citations, a copyvio check reveals no problems, hook content is verified with a citation to an offline reliable source in the article (AGF). This review is for the original hook only, because the term "horny dicks" as stated in ALT1 is not stated in the article; only "horney dicks" is. I have provided an alt below. North America1000 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that the Londonderry Borough Police were nicknamed the Horney Dicks?
  • I think alt2 wouldn't quite fit with the April Fools Day brief, therefore I'm happy to accept the review for the original hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer ALT2, as it's less blatant and sexually suggestive compared to stating "these guys were horney dicks". After all, this is main page content. I prefer a more subtle approach here. The promoter can decide, as it's the same content, only reworded. North America1000 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the original hook is fine and ALT2 rather spoils the joke. Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • How about:
  • ALT3: ... that when urgent demands were thrust upon them, horney dicks flopped? Gatoclass (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT4: ... that in Londonderry in the 1870s, there weren't enough horney dicks to satisfy demand? Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you take a look at the new alts please EEng? Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I am honored and humbled to have been selected for this important task. I hope I can rise to the occasion.
ALT5: ... that thrust into a difficult situation, the horney dicks failed to satisfy? [This refers to the 1869 inquiry]
ALT6: ... that thirteen horney dicks were inadequate? [Looks like the nickname applied only after the early force of 13 was supplanted.]
EEng 16:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Approving ALT5 as the best hook (ALT0 is also approved but is uninspiring). Other aspects of the review as per Northamerica1000. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Robin Hood v. United States

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is sufficiently long, and was nominated for DYK on the same day it was created. QPQ completed. The last sentence in the background section has a citation to a ref that supports most of it, but doesn't make the specific claim about the case being dismissed with prejudice. (The entirety of the source document states: "This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judgment is entered accordingly."; ref 2 does support the claim in page 3, though) The quotation "To dismiss these cases show a cover-up..." is not accompanied by a citation (nor is the earlier quotation in that sentence). As far as sources go, source 6 appears to be low quality (perhaps blogspam?) and should probably be removed, and source 1 is rather click-baity but I'll accept it as it at least presents info (albeit without its own sources). As far as the hook is concerned, could you tweak it to remove the (unproven) claim he was robbed? (Perhaps ..."for conspiring to rob him" or some such.) I suppose that ALT1 is acceptable as is. (ALT1 and amended original hook are acceptable only if promoted for April Fool's Day.) Mindmatrix 19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW: I wasn't trying to diminish the April Fool's Day hook, and upon review of the article, my suggestion was probably not quite correct. Aside: perhaps you can also take advantage of the term in forma pauperis to start the hook with "...the pauper Robin Hood...". What do you think of ALT2? Mindmatrix 21:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
To whomever creates the set for April Fool's Day, can the ellipsis be eliminated from the quotation for AFD (assuming nominator likes ALT2)? Mindmatrix 21:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I am OK with that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mindmatrix:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svgUh, there are still outstanding issues from my review you haven't addressed. In point form, they are:
  • The last sentence in the background section makes a claim the case was dismissed with prejudice, but the source doesn't support it (ref 2 does support the claim in page 3, though)
  • Source 6 is not an acceptable source per WP:RS.
That's all that needs to be corrected. Mindmatrix 03:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go for April Fool's Day. (My preference is ALT2, then ALT1.) Mindmatrix 14:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Winker's Song (Misprint)

  • ... that I'm a Wanker? Source:Lethal Force: "our anthem of choice was Ivor Biggun's 1978 classic "I'm a Wanker"

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough and long enough, but the hook does not present any verifiable facts, so cannot be used. Also, what makes 45worlds.com a reliable source, and The Metro is often considered a tabloid newspaper and not a brilliant source to use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm. @EEng:, do you know what we normally do about these sorts of things? While the Metro is not used for the hook, the article still needs to be in a reasonable shape generally with regard to sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The misprint thing is confusing. Looks like the original title (when the song was written, and maybe as it was recorded) was "The Wanker's Song", but when actually released it was "The Winker's Song", and then later it was included on an album called The Winker's Album (Misprint). And even to put that together I had to connect some dots. I don't see anywhere that the song itself ever carried a title including (misprint).
  • I'm not sure that a single source apparently mistakenly referring to the song by its first line, or refrain, as if that's the title, establishes that line as some kind of alternate title as given in bold in the lead. I think we'd need a source saying "popularly known as" or something like that.
  • The Metro, aside from being a marginal source, doesn't support the statement "reached number 22 in the UK Singles Charts despite not being aired on the radio owing to obscenities around masturbation within it"; AFAICS the source just says that one particular slang term is used in the song, and nothing why it's wasn't aired.
  • Personally I think better hooks would be:
ALT1 ... that the "The Wanker's Song" has been compared to songs by George Formby?
ALT2 ... that some nightclubs play the "The Wanker's Song" to clear the dance floor?
EEng 18:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The article does cite British Hit Singles for the chart position (in another place), and while I don't have a copy anymore (where's it gone), I do recall seeing "Ivor Biggun" in it and am happy to AGF it is correct. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added further sources with regard to it alternatively being known as "I'm a Wanker". If you look at the official chart sources, it includes the full title as the official title. As for the hook @Ritchie333:, I'm not too sure about the proposed hooks so my suggestion is:
Symbol question.svg The problem is that the source for that is the 1990 British Hit Singles, which doesn't seem right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Sorry? That source isn't being used to reference the BBC claim. It's being used to reference Ibiza nightclubs using it for closedown, which would make sense as thats not about the release, its about the legacy it left. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@The C of E: Sorry, I was referring to ALT2, which is my preferred hook : "that some nightclubs play the "The Wanker's Song" to clear the dance floor?" While it's possible it's in the 1990 British Hit Singles, I'm sceptical as it doesn't really fit the narrative of those series of books. Also, the page number is missing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I had got that from its use citing the same fact in the Doc Cox article, so I don't know what the page number is. However, I will say that I am supporting ALT4 from EEng as my preferred choice as we have had something similar with Computer says no from last year. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Right - I see what's happening think the source is citing the chart positions of this song and "Bras on 45" which fits the format of the book, but not the claim earlier in the sentence of emptying dance floors. All you get in British Hit Singles is a short introduction, the main bit of chart entries, and some stats at the back. I am certain this claim is not in the source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I have changed the source to the only one I could find that appeared reliable (aside of all the blog posts confirming it), though I must stress I am putting a lot of faith into the claim on it that it has been "peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff". IF you're not satisfied I suppose I will have to remove it, which would be a shame. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I gotta say all of those alt hooks pale in comparison to the first one, especially as far as April Fools' go. If we can have "Did you know ... ?" (2012 April Fools') we can have "DYK .... that I'm a Wanker?". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thank you. You're more than welcome to give it an official review for AFD if you think it does fulfill the requirements. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, if you want to go back to something like ALT0 I'd suggest dropping that' –
ALT4 ... "I'm a Wanker"?
i.e. you're asking the reader whether he/she "knows" the song, rather than the asking whether he/she is familiar with the nominator's personal habits. Ritchie333, I'm not sure whether I answered you original query.
Oh, and I still don't see anything giving the title of the song (not album) as "... (Misprint)". EEng 00:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: I like ALT4 there, thank you for suggesting it. As for including "(Misprint)" in the title, the official chart company use it. I think it's often left out in other references for brevity. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Okay, since I cannot find anyone objecting, ALT4 it is! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't like any of the above hooks. Suggested alt:

Then we're even, 'cuz I don't care for ALT4. The important thing is that the new alt gets verified so that the updater has a choice. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg ALT5 verified and cited inline. IMO it's better to avoid using obscenities if we're able, and the hint is suggestive enough. Yoninah (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I still affirm that the original review stands which was done in accordance with policy and the proposed above is a personal preference trying to be put onto this nomination. Besides, ALT5 is too awkwardly worded (Why would we use a German word on the front page of the English Wikipedia anyway?) and is not that hooky for April fools Day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Waterloo Pioneer Memorial Tower

The Mennonite tower
The Mennonite tower
  • ... that a blood riot led to a Mennonite tower (pictured)? From The Apathetic and the Defiant: Case Studies of Canadian Mutiny and Disobedience, 1812 to 1919, pg 200: "Sergeant-Major Granville P. Blood of the 118th Battalion argued in self defence after leading a riot in Berlin, Ontario."; and [8]: "The tower was built in 1926 due to the efforts of W. H. Breithaupt, looking to commemorate the German-Pennsylvania Mennonites" and "Briethaupt was trying to just re-jig our history a little tiny bit because of all the troubles we went through in World War One."
    • ALT1:... that a blood riot led to a pioneer erection? From The Apathetic and the Defiant: Case Studies of Canadian Mutiny and Disobedience, 1812 to 1919, pg 200: "Sergeant-Major Granville P. Blood of the 118th Battalion argued in self defence after leading a riot in Berlin, Ontario."; and [9]: "The tower was built in 1926 due to the efforts of W. H. Breithaupt, looking to commemorate the German-Pennsylvania Mennonites" and "Briethaupt was trying to just re-jig our history a little tiny bit because of all the troubles we went through in World War One."
    • ALT2:... that a blood riot about a name led to a Mennonite tower (pictured)? From The Apathetic and the Defiant: Case Studies of Canadian Mutiny and Disobedience, 1812 to 1919, pg 200: "Sergeant-Major Granville P. Blood of the 118th Battalion argued in self defence after leading a riot in Berlin, Ontario."; and [10]: "The tower was built in 1926 due to the efforts of W. H. Breithaupt, looking to commemorate the German-Pennsylvania Mennonites" and "Briethaupt was trying to just re-jig our history a little tiny bit because of all the troubles we went through in World War One."

Created by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 18:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg all hooks check out, personally I like ALT2. Also, length, date, copvio, refs, etc all check out. These would be good for quirky or lead with photo. HalfGig talk 23:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer ALT2 as well, so I'll strike the others. I think a more clever caption for the photo would be better than the current "The Mennonite tower". Mindmatrix 02:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • While the hook is fine, I'm not seeing what is April Fools-ish about it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "blood riot" refers to a riot led by Major Blood, not widespread bloodshed in the streets. I'll admit it's not quirky in the typical sense, but it is a twist on the phrasing in the article. (These hooks would not be appropriate for a normal DYK.) Mindmatrix 15:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

White-throated honeyeater

White-throated honeyeater
White-throated honeyeater

5x expanded by Casliber (talk). Self-nominated at 15:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Nice article, up to the usual high standards. It's new enough, long enough, reliably sourced, well-written and illustrated. The hook fact is interesting and sourced. I think there could be a more amusing version though. What do you think of the following? Prioryman (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg* ALT1 ... that the white-throated honeyeater (pictured) used to be gay, but isn't any more?
  • Possibly a trifle on the glib side but gave me a chuckle....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check ALT1 hook to see whether it's okay to run as is, since it was proposed by original reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Approving ALT1 as being amusing and having an inline citation. Either it or ALT0 could be promoted. The image is appropriately licensed and the rest of the review as per Prioryman. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's only a few weeks now until April Fool's Day. Might this be suitable for holding over until then? Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Vinh wiretap

The Hughes OH-6 Cayuse was the basis for "The Quiet One".
The Hughes OH-6 Cayuse was the basis for "The Quiet One".
  • ... that the CIA's black helicopter (pictured) from Area 51 was used to eavesdrop on Paris Peace Talks discussions?
    • Source: Conboy, Kenneth and James Morrison (1995). Shadow War: The CIA's Secret War in Laos. Paladin Press. ISBN 0-87364-825-0 pp. 381-386. Also, Chiles, James R., "Air America's Black Helicopters", Air and Space Magazine, March 2008. Retrieved 17 January 2017 from [11].
      • Having scanned other noms in the new format, I realize I could be more explicit in my sourcing:
      • "...it received an experimental , radar-absorbent, semigloss black finish." "On 8 April 1971, Hughes officially unveiled the Quiet One to the public." Conboy p. 382.
      • "Flights of The Quiet One included low-level work at the secret Air Force base Area 51..." Air/Space Mag, p. 3 in hard copy.
      • "...the Vinh [wire]tap was providing a stream of information from inside the DRV [Democratic Republic of Vietnam]." (Bracketed info added for clarification.) Conboy p. 385.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Reviewed: TBA Horse Soldiers (film)
  • Comment: Nomination for April Fool's Day. I am baffled by the process of attaching a photo. If some kind soul could attach the photo from the article, I will alter the caption to fit.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 22:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC).

    • A grateful tip of the hat to Casliber--the most recent of many.
    • Now--let the review begin.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Length, Date, Cite, QPQ, and Earwigs check. The image is from Flickr and while it is no longer available it is confirmed to have been freely licensed when it was uploaded. Hold for April Fools. Mifter (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wayne Shaw (footballer)

Created by Мне отмщение, и аз воздам (talk), The C of E (talk), and Sussexpeople (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 09:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

  • Note that this DYK nomination is dependent on the outcome of the AfD discussion. Nevertheless, I shall conduct a review as it looks like the AfD will probably be a keep.
  • On hold Article is new enough (created 20 February, nominated 23 February) and long enough (3210 characters). Article is within the policies of neutral, well cited and not a copyvio. Although notability is currently being discussed- if it passes AfD then this can be a tick rather than on hold.
  • YesY Hooks are short enough, interesting and supported by inline citations. I like ALT0 the least- my preference would be ALT2 for April Fool's Day hook, although ALT1 as a normal hook would be fine too.
  • YesY QPQ done
  • On hold This nomination cannot be accepted whilst the AfD discussion is ongoing. Assuming that the article is kept, I will then be happy to pass this nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair enough about ALT0, I've realised now that it could be a BLP issue too, so I'm more than happy to move towards the April Fools line. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This is now good to go, per my previous review. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Tal's Hill

Tal's Hill
Tal's Hill
  • ... that removal of Tal's Hill (pictured) was criticized as part of a trend to create uniform baseball parks? Source: Forbes
  • Reviewed: Lightning rod fashion
  • Comment: Original for 3 April (Astros opening day), ALT maybe for April Fools day.

Converted from a redirect by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 11:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - Length, Date, Cite, QPQ, and Earwigs check for both - I reworded the original hook a bit to make it more readable. Image appears to be freely licensed. Mifter (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Further to my comment, I think now after looking at it again, it would probably be better to use ALT1 for April Fools day as the original is a bit dull. Plus I'd also suggest that the image not be used as there are better ones in other hooks and this image doesn't really give a good view of it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Black River (Saucon Creek)

  • ... that Black River is a "miserable ditch"? Source: "I have no idea who gave this miserable ditch that grant name."[12]
    • ALT1:... that in southeast Pennsylvania, a river is a tributary to a creek? Source: "Black River...A stream that parallels the Lehigh University ca mpus and reaches the Sauc on Creek in the Borough of Hellertown approximately ½ mile north of the Silver Creek and Saucon Creek junction."[13]

Moved to mainspace by Jakob Coles (talk). Self-nominated at 02:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - Length, Date, Cite, QPQ, and Earwigs check. Do we want to save this for April fools? Otherwise, ALT0 should likely be slightly reworded. Mifter (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with running it on April Fools. Jakob (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this one as an everyday hook, but it's not an April Fools hook IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons

Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Self-nominated at 14:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Great hook. New enough, long enough, well sourced. Earwig found only direct quotes, no copyvio. Hook source checked. The link to Guangling needs disambiguation but I think that's not a blocker for DYK. QPQ done. Good to go, but see nominator request about saving for April 1. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Pulled from Queue, reopened, as discussed at WT:DYK: Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines "C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." Fram (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Illustration from A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons
Illustration from A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons

It's hard to beat the title of the work by itself. Let's try the following. Andrew D. (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: that works too! But once again some very serious folk might think it contravenes certain holy WikiRules -- it might still have to wait for April 1 nonetheless. (BTW per MOS one should NOT italicise short story titles) Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Neither of these hooks work for me. Gatoclass (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Symbol confirmed.svg A disappointment that this has to wait so long when there was no great wall of text. Nevertheless; date, length and hooks all OK. I personally prefer the original which I think would probably work better without the image (which is licenced) as it ties into last year's he was gay on AFD. QPQ done with no close paraphrasing. Good to go on AFD. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I still think these hooks are not up to scratch as April Fools hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Polk Valley Run

Moved to mainspace by Jakob Coles (talk). Self-nominated at 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - Length, Date, Cite, QPQ, and Earwigs check. I've moved this to the April Fools holding pen per the request. Mifter Public (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Mark Barr

  • ... that erection engineer Mark Barr credited bicycles with stimulating ball development, had a business making rubbers, and was elected to the Screw Committee?

5x expanded by David Eppstein (talk), Dicklyon (talk), and EEng (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 03:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC).

  • I'm reviewing this. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
We are honored, your Arbship. EEng 04:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't be so hasty, EEng; I'll do my best to torpedo this phallic setup. Help an old guy out: I cannot find where he credits the bicycle industry. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
2nd sentence of "Other inventions and discoveries". —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I mean in the typography book. That's a font I can't adjust. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not in the typography book, it's in Barr's 1896 paper (the source credited in the text of that sentence). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, I just found it--you guys forgot to put the footnote to that 1896 article in the text, so I wasted half an hour and my eyes poring over the typography book. Stick it in there and I'll pass it. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Drmies, surely you're not suggesting I'd go off half-cocked?
  • Barr credits the bicycle industry for stimulating development of the perfectly spherical steel balls needed in this application.
  • Barr was a participant in a business venture to make synthetic rubber from turpentine by a bacterial process.
  • Beginning in 1902, he was elected to the Small Screw Gauge Committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
  • He was educated in London, then worked for the Westinghouse Electric Company in Pittsburgh from 1887 to 1890 as a "draughtsman, laboratory assistant and erection engineer
EEng 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't be silly, EEng, and go and stick that footnote in. I've already read the whole thing and every single online source. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Your Arbship – it was an (edit conflict). I didn't notice the later bit about the missing cite. All's well that ends well. EEng 04:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, shiny enough, long enough, hard enough. Sources check out, no plagiarism that I can find, etc. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that erection engineer Mark Barr had a business making rubbers, said that bicycles stimulated ball development, and was elected to the Screw Committee?
EEng 04:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg *Can I go to bed now? Drmies (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
By all means let's go to bed. EEng 05:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Orobanche uniflora

5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC).