Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Main Page/Did you know

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

This is the talk page for Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did you know. Comments should be made at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, the main talk page for this group, or at Help talk:Template for technical questions. Because of this page's obscure location, comments made here are unlikely to get a quick response.

This page was last edited by David Eppstein (talk | contribs) 9 months ago. (Update timer)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the April Fools' Main Page/Did you know page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Beresheet

I recently read that the Israeli Beresheet mission put tardigrades on the moon, which may have survived. I'm considering writing an April Fools DYK hook that says something like "... that Beresheet sent non-human Israeli astronauts to the moon?" The article is new enough, does anyone have suggestions? - ZLEA _T\^C 23:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZLEA, For april fools, I don't even think you need the 'non-human' bit. April fools hooks are allowed to be intentionally misleading. Though, the link should be to the relevant section of the tardigrade article Tardigrade#Survival_in_space. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just jumping in here to say that they AFD hooks are not only allowed to be intentionally misleading, they really must be misleading or they don't belong on this special day. E Eng 06:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA: Or even remove the Israeli reference so it flows better. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Rock

A DYK on this would be good – being a chunk of rock, and yet designated a ship makes for some good jokes: DYK… HMS Diamond Rock is made of stone? DYK… HMS Diamond Rock has been moored off Martinique since 1803? What do you think? Sir Magnus (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Magnus: It was not created, nor made a GA in the last year so it is ineligible. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ships

Are there any articles on ships that fit the criteria – due to a ship being a “she” it could make for some amusing hooks – "DYK – the Prince of Wales is a she?" I can't find any at present. Sir Magnus (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YOURMAJESTYYOURSLIPISSHOWING. E Eng 14:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only 6 weeks left!

April Fools Day is coming later. Thingofme (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thingofme: It is indeed, can I ask would you be able to review the one remaining AFD hook that is pending approval? I'm sure there will be more articles over the coming weeks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

@Yoninah:, I don't understand why Led Zeppelin Played Here is less worthy for the AFDYK than Ate my balls or Rio de Flag? --evrik ^(talk) 19:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik: Firstly, I think The C of E owns the AFD page with his raunchy humor (which is distasteful to a lot of people). So I won't even comment on that other nomination. Secondly, the April Fools hooks are supposed to be a double-take: you read the hook, click on the article expecting to find one thing, and "April Fools!" – it really means something else. When I plugged this into a regular quirky slot, I saw it goes much better there. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think I own it. In fact, that article that's currently in there wasn't even mine. I only included it because I thought it was rich grounds for an AFD hook when I came across it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit, I think the hook could have been rewritten to fit "the criteria." No offense to eating balls, but one editor should not have the power to veto an AFD submission. --evrik ^(talk) 15:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this continue?

Now that we live in the age of fake news and have no shared objective reality (especially in the US), should we continue the April Fools DYK? I worry that, because of widespread intellectual laziness and general dumbassery, visitors will see the jokes and consider them real, passing them along as evidence. "Hitler was a Democrat?" Boom, viral Twitter post! Sure, it is not our job to educate people on critical thinking; however, as a source for reliable knowledge, any potential for misleading people (fun or not) in the modern area should be used with caution. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should continue. I think look on social media and you see people love it. That's why if every single one is ludicrous, then people will get its a joke. Besides, if they don't know it's April fools Day on 1 April, then they might just be said April Fool. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should continue, but we need to tighten it up. AFD isn't just for stuff that's funny (we can run that any week in the quirky slot) but which fools the reader somehow (until he clicks, anyway). And please, let's give the in rems a rest, unless they're really, really funny -- they're getting tired. There's potential this year for an all-Hitler set (or, if we need to broaden it to fill out the set, and all-autocrat theme) but we gotta be sure it doesn't misfire. E Eng 06:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a Mugabe joke at the moment @EEng:. As for our traditional in rem case, I was in the process of writing about the time the United States sued one sold golden cock. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It grieves me to say, again, that a lot or even most of the noms here are just quirky, not fool-ish. We seem to have totally lost sight of what AFD means. E Eng 03:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have nothing against hooks which are funny and might *look like an April fool's day joke* but are actually true. But I strongly object to the usual nonsense that goes up on 1 April which uses false grammar, phony reuse of celebrity names, or incorrect capitalisation to create a suggestion of something that is untrue. These examples from last year have no place on an encyclopedia:
- ... that you can have sex with two cans of Pepsi, though one might need to be twisted?
- ... that former President Clinton said his day would be ruined if he didn't get a bacon butty (pictured) and a cup of tea?
- ... that a Queen of England was named after a blast furnace?
- ... that Turing wrote Prof: Alan Turing Decoded sixty years after his death?

None of these are true if taken at face value, and that's what we need to avoid this year. They aren't funny, and they mislead readers. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the Pepsi one, that got changed in prep (something I never like happening) because it was originally "you might have had sex on Pepsi cans in 1990", that was certainly more accurate in terms of wording. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that those aren't all the best, and some or all even don't belong, AFD is in fact the one day on which hooks are allowed to be sufficiently misleading that they can be called false on their face. For example (not to pick on anyone), right now we have that in 1973 Michigan governor William Milliken gave the homily at a funeral for 29,188 frozen cheese and mushroom pizzas?. That's quirky, but it's not AFD. AFD is Mussolini didn't like politics because the reader's natural interpretation of that makes it untrue -- and surprising -- on its face (though unfortunately the hook we have is in the present tense, which spoils the effect). If I may say so myself, here's a good series that I put together some years ago (though I'm not sure all of these were in the actual set -- one or two I might have thought up later):

... that Trump is directly connected to Russia?
... that Hillary's portrait is now being printed on the $5 bill?
... that Obama was born in Japan?
... that the US National Gallery of Art has a picture of Trump urinating?
... that police found a corpse in Bernie's freezer?

That's an AFD set. E Eng 00:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of April Fools sets, but I think we've lost our way. We don't censor, but that doesn't mean we need 7 of the 15 approved hooks to be click bait: three entries named Hitler: Adolf Hitler Uunona, Adolf Hitler (Calypso) and Hitler Nababan - and one Romano Floriani Mussolini. Hitler and Mussolini have been dead for 76 years, why is the mention of their names humorous? And there's the adolescent-ish laugh bait - Ate my balls, Johnny Dickshot and Cake and Cunnilingus Day. And, oh yes, there's also "that United States Marshals grabbed Dick's golden cock" for the United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster. Maybe we should give it a rest at least this year. — Maile (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, too many fascists puts a drag on the festive mood. And I'm totally sick of the in rem hooks. Jesus, give it a rest already. E Eng 00:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I only put that grabbed one in there because of what you said EEng that you were tired of "US sued object". Personally I prefer the original. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have become just "let's put all the quirkies here", and especially anything with sexual or otherwise possibly offensive content. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with April Fool's any more. It seems to have become very sophomoric. I'd support suspending for a year while we rethink. —valereee (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Maybe there are enough good ones for a single set, anyway. I elect valereeeeeeee to give that a try. Otherwise, maybe the joke this year is that all the hooks are straight! Ha ha! That'll show 'em! E Eng 00:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOOLS says (per the consensus at WP:AF1):

“

For the main page, there is a consensus for "Did you know" entries to include "clever puns rather than poop jokes and sexual innuendos".

”

For the past few years, we’ve had 2 sets of DYKs and switched them at noon UTC. Perhaps this year we should be more discerning, cut the unfunny ones, and have 1 set of good hooks this year. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I've got no problem with poop jokes and sexual innuendo as long as they're clever puns. E Eng 01:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Clever poop jokes = good. Stupid poop jokes not so much. Can't someone do something with duty-free? —valereee (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea

Really, one problem with our AFD sets is that with all hooks in the set being (or attempting to be...) fool-ish, the reader catches on right away before even clicking. That spoils it. AFD might be better served by running two or three sets in which all of the hooks are straight, as usual, and only the last hook in each set (usually the "quirky" slot) is an AFD item, taking advantage of AFD's broader rules. Then the reader can be truly taken unawares until he clicks. This means we'd have only two or three AFD items each year, but they're be the very best. E Eng 01:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is too subtle IMO. What if readers never make it to the last hook? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That could happen any day. Subtlety is the whole point for AFD. E Eng 12:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's too subtle, nobody will notice the joke. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not if their faculties have been turned to mush by a continual stream of pie-in-the-face slapstick. E Eng 02:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good idea -- a single April Fool's hook would be so much more effective. I think we should seriously consider it for next year. —valereee (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Agree. Is it possible to do this this year?Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeromi Mikhael, no, this is the kind of thing that will require a RfC and probably weeks of discussion. It's not the kind of change a handful of people can make. If someone tried to BOLDly do this, I suspect many people would have a hard time interpreting it as good faith editing. —valereee (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not when we have enough for 2 full sets for this year please. Maybe we can have a discussion for next year? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 AFD DYK hook preparation

It's 5 days before AFD starts, so I think we should discuss which hooks do we want to put in the mainpage for April 1. Pinging @EEng, Valereee, The C of E, and Pythoncoder: as the main contributor for the above discussion. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeromi Mikhael: We do have enough for 2 full sets in my view. But I think the Adolf Hitler Uunona hook will not be running based on there is a discussion on possible renaming and changing the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: Ah yes, about that, I've found out Hitler's personal facebook account here. It seems that he is using the name Hitle (without r). But unfortunately (or fortunate?) we don't have any RS to talk about this and he would be stuck with this name forever. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must mean that nice Mr Hilter, of Minehead by-election fame? "Oh no no, you've got he wrong map there. This is Stalingrad. You want the Ilfracombe and Barnstable section!" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E, do you think there's any problem with not all the hooks in a set being April Fool's hooks? —valereee (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I think because people expect the tradition, not just the editors on here but also for those who say they only come here for the fun of April Fools. I do think there is one when it is proposed so close to the day when we have hooks that have been waiting for months specifically for that. I do think that if you chop and change, you do have the issue as mentioned above that many lose interest before they get to the end for the fools hook if this proposal went through. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E, sorry for the delay, trying to catch up with my pings! If the consensus is that any sort of silliness or even simple raunchiness goes because having the whole set be part of it is crucial, I'm not going to object.

I do think it would be a good idea to as a matter of course open a talk section for any hook containing a link to a BLP when it's first suggested for AFD. Doesn't need to be added into the rules, which already state that BLP policy applies, as long as AFD regulars know that it'll help prevent non-regulars from raising issues late in the process. :D —valereee (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think after all the positive comments we have had on social media for it, it seems that the people come to demand and expect it. For that reason, we are drawing people in I am not in favour of any changes because it is clearly working as it is at the moment. Especially given for the second year in a row, all the AFD hooks made it to STATS. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mulard

Friendly reminder that Mulard translates to Tiktok in the Indonesian language (a portmanteau of itik and entok). Any expansion to the article is welcome.--Love and Parting (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truck-kun

I created and nominated an article on Truck-kun for DYK (see nomination). It has been approved, and looks like it might make the April Fool's main page, but in order to get it here I need an image. I was wondering if someone might be able to create an picture depicting Wikipedia's anime mascot Wikipe-tan with Truck-kun. However, I believe the artist who originally created Wikipe-tan is no longer active. Is there anyone else here who would be interested in making an image to go with the article and nomination? I have also asked if anyone in the anime WikiProject would also be interested in helping. ISD (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISD, you do not need an image for the article to be run on April Fools. Indeed, only the lead hook will be displayed with an image; the other seven won't have them. I've added Truck-kun to the page. There's nothing wrong with having an image, and if you're able to get one that is completely free for use (creative commons free license or the equivalent), then the nomination will be eligible for the lead slot. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. As I said, I suspect that we won't be able to find the exact image I want because the creator of Wikipe-tan is not on Wikipedia anymore, but perhaps if someone wants to just draw Truck-kun on their own that could be helpful. I mention it just in case anyone reading this is interested. ISD (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rules query

I have a suitable DYK hook for April 1, but the article was created today and is unlikely to grow to five times its current size. Are we limited to articles which happen to be created or expanded in the last week of March, or is there some sort of exemption for April 1? Or do we have to nominate them within seven days of creation then sit on them for two months (which seems stupidly bureaucratic, but I've seen worse)? Certes (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rules, "the article need only have been created/expanded/brought to GA in the year immediately preceding the April 1 on which it will appear". You may nominate it any time in the year before April 1, as long as you allow sufficient time for review. The usual practice is to nominate within a week after creation/expansion/GA; this is a good idea, because if it doesn't work out for AFD, it would still be eligible as a "normal" nom. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On attempting a nomination, the form informs me that the article I had in mind isn't long enough to qualify, but thanks anyway. Certes (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]