Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2011

Please use this page for discussions surrounding the creation of a "Did You Know" items for April Fool's day 2011

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

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...

DYK articles, for the April Fools DYK, are allowed to be taken from the year prior to April Fool's Day, as long as they have not previously been featured on DYK. The normal "5 day" rule for expansion and nominating is not followed. The article must be created between last April 1st and next March 31st, or have been expanded five times the size it was last April 1st by next March 31st. This exception started in 2006 and has been utilized since.
Proper capitalization, title formatting, and linking standards, may be disregarded only if doing this will 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

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new 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 additional rules.

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:

Code	DYK Ready?	Description
{{subst:DYKtick}}	Yes	No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}}	Yes	Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}}	Query	DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with `{{subst:DYKproblem\|Article}}`
{{subst:DYK?no}}	Maybe	DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with `{{subst:DYKproblem\|Article}}`
{{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

Awaiting verification

Mollie's Nipple

... that Molly, the wife of John Kitchen has at least eight nipples listed by US Geological Survey?

Comment: Honestly I have no idea why everybody me including keeps nominating here. It looks like for April 1 of this year we are set up. So, I guess I nominated the hook just for fun. I was inspired to write this article after I read breast shaped hill :-)

Created by Mbz1 (talk). Self nom at 02:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breast shaped hill

... that the name Mamucium that gave origin to the name of the city of Manchester is thought to derive from the Celtic language meaning breast shaped hill?

Created/expanded by Xufanc (talk). Nominated by AgadaUrbanit (talk) at 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT 1 ...that Manchester was once thought to be breast-shaped.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Manchester is going to be the example used in the hook, the image might be misleading as it's implied that it's Manchester. It might be better to go without an image (or with another example) as I can't think of a photo of Manchester that really shows why it was described as breast-shaped. Nev1 (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Supreme Court in rem obscenity cases

... that 37 photographs, 12 home movies, a bunch of books and a search warrant have had their day at the U.S. Supreme Court?

Created by Daniel Case. Self nom at 15:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe it's not totally an April Fool's DYK, but both lawyers and nonlawyers find in rem case titles (where one of the parties is an inanimate object or collection of same) funny. And they're new. And this would be a personal record on my part for most articles in a hook. If someone wants to wait until just before Friday, I might be able to squeeze in Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, 367 U.S. 717 (1961), as well. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I have created the search warrant case article and added it to both versions of the hook
- I find the original titles of the articles funnier than the link-names you provided so how about:
  ALT 1:... that United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, Quantity of Books v. Kansas and Marcus v. Search Warrant have had their day at the U.S. Supreme Court?
  
  SteveBaker (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, uh, this is April Fool's. That gives the punchline away. You want people to click on them. Plus it's more compact without the titles spelled out (I also italicized them, as they are supposed to be). Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devastation Trail

... that there is a place , where a woman's tears and hair (pictured) are still preserved 50+ years after she exploded?

Created by Mbz1 (talk). Self nom at 05:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make that "goddess's" instead of "woman's" and I think it's both "truthful" and titillating. Banaticus (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Women Crossing, Oklahoma

... that dead women who are said to be crossing Deer Creek in Oklahoma are connected to Clinton?

Created by Mbz1 (talk). Self nom at 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an unincorporated area? Shouldn't the article be named Dead Women Crossing, Oklahoma to keep up with standard naming convention in the United States? Clinton should wikilink to that article (I don't think it spoils the hook). Royal broil 21:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I moved the article and added a wikilink for the hook.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like hook 1... trying to come up with something better, but my thoughts on the subject are in the direction of:

Alt 2 ... that nobody familiar with Clinton was implicated in a mysterious disappearance of a mother and child?

I'm not sold on that, because it's hard to tie Clinton the placewith Clinton the person. Note, if I were to use this as a hook, I would NOT link Clinton in the hook. Make people look up the article to find out "which Clinton" is being referenced!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this hook is not only about Clinton. "Dead women crossing" by itself makes a nice hook IMO. Clinton makes it better yet.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt3 that a dead women who is calling for her baby has nothing to do with Clinton, but Ham, who murdered her, does?

Epistles of Wisdom

... that access has been restricted to the Epistles of Wisdom in order to protect to the ignorant?

Created/expanded by Paul Bedson (talk). Self nom at 05:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does not mention "Wikipedia". Is this hook OK?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed it and taken it out. Seems plenty funny enough anyhow. Paul Bedson (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand this hook at all.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the hook either, how about:

Alt 1 That in order to protect the innocent, access to wisdom (has/must) be denied.

I like the version with "must" better, but am not sure if we can get away with it. Or how about:

Alt 2: .... that it has been alleged that the only way to protec the innocent, is to deny them wisdom?

Either way, don't put an image with this one. An image immediately gives away that this hook isn't about "wisdom" in the esoteric sense.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paloma Picasso's red period

... that Paloma Picasso's red period has started, when she was just 6 years old and lasted through most of her life?
Alt1 that while Pablo Picasso's blue period lasted only for 4 years, his daughter Paloma Picasso started having first symptoms of her red period at age 6, and it has lasted through most of her life?

Comment: Requires copy editing

Created by Mbz1 (talk). Self nom at 21:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2...That Picasso's daughter had a period that lasted most of her life?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course it is better not include the word "red" in the hook. I was not sure, if it was allowed.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3...that Picasso's red period started at 6 years of age. SteveBaker (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I would oppose promoting this article on the Main Page, even on April Fools' Day. Her "red period" isn't really anything other than an attempt by a few people to be clever, alluding to her father's Blue and Rose periods, which really were something. The article basically just tells us in detail that her favorite color was red. I removed the categories which were on the article because, while they applied to the Paloma Picasso article, they did not apply to this one; I couldn't come up with any applicable replacement categories to add, because the article's not about anything. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a funny hook that suits April Fools' Day. The subject is notable, and is sourced by a few wp:RS. I added categories back. It should be discussed not here, but at the article's talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like it explicitly because it is a play on Picasso's other periods...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I resolved the problem with categories by creating a new category for Paloma Picasso.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I first encountered the article, my first instinct was to slap a tag on it to merge it into Paloma Picasso. I just read it over again, and to me, it still just looks like an extended report on a fashion designer's favorite color. (The inability to find a suitable category without creating one specifically for Paloma Picasso is somewhat indicative of the problem.) Others seem to disagree, so I won't interfere any further. But if the article does end up getting the widespread exposure of a Main Page appearance, I wouldn't be surprised if someone ended up nominating it for merge or deletion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps - but do we care? So long as the article isn't deleted either before or during April 1st...meh...I might even nominate it for a merge. SteveBaker (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USCGC Alexander Hamilton (WPG-34)

... that Alexander Hamilton was hit by a German and then shot three times by John Ericsson after the duel with Aaron Burr?

Created by KimChee (talk). Self nom at 07:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Not sure the "after the duel" part adds to the hook, although I suppose it certainly was "after"! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that the story of Alexander Hamilton is very regional specific. If you are from outside of the USA, most likely, you would have never heard of him, and the joke would be lost. I think this nom is better for normal DYK, because of these reasons. I will move it over for you if you want.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to disagree with that as there is no rule against penalizing the content of any article because of regional subject matter. Rather, the guidance for preparation of updates (see N5) recommends to balance the ratio of U.S.-specific hooks at about 50%, and that figure is not absolute as well. More importantly for April Fool's, is it funny? If I did not know who Mr. Hamilton was, the hook would make me feel very sorry for him. :) KimChee (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree as well; the Burr-Hamilton duel is a very well-known point in history, that is well-known outside the U.S. too - a Vice-President of a country shot and killed the Secretary of the Treasury in a duel! That gets in everybody's history books. As far as being "very regional-specific" - even if it were true, while WP:CSB is admirable, things shouldn't be excluded just because they're American. If people don't know about things, shouldn't Wikipedia give them the chance to learn? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I'm sorry to say that I have never heard of Alexander Hamilton or his apparently famous duel. On the other, I think it still sounds pretty ridiculous. Ben Mac Dui 19:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At april fools DYK we try to keep the jokes as non-regional specific as we can, especially with the ones that are just a object or person with the same name as a famous person, and in my opinion "Alexander Hamilton" isn't known well enough in the grater scheme of things for this one to work. To be fair though, i have been the only person reviewing noms on this page for about ten months now and am getting pretty tired of it. It is usually just me, nominators, and people coming here to complain about something, so I might just be getting jaded and not seeing the humor in the noms anymore.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If this isn't going to go for April Fool's, though, it should probably go ahead and run as normal DYK, I'd assume? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know wha tto do with this one, i'll let other editors decide.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we can use this one. The Alexander Hamilton we're talking about in the first half of the sentence (the ship) isn't the same as the Alexander Hamilton in the second half (the duallist) - so the sentence is an outright lie - and that's clearly not allowed by the DYK rules. Besides, the fact that someone famous has a ship named after them is SO old and tired that it's not going to impress anyone. This suggestion is unusable...sorry. SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I worded it carefully by substituting "his duel" with "the duel" to avoid an outright lie. If you look at the DYK rules for April 1, the purpose of hooks for this particular day is "to confuse and mislead Wikipedians and visitors". KimChee (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually, like it, but might tweak it somewhat:

ALT1: that Alexander Hamilton was hit by a German and then shot three times by John Ericsson after Hamilton was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2: that after after he was killed in a duel, Alexander Hamilton was hit by a German and then shot three times by John Ericsson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 March 2011

Thank you very much for trying to salvage this ship! :) ALT1 does present a bit of a conundrum by mentioning Hamilton twice. I think the wording of ALT2 may cross the line from simply being misleading into becoming a falsehood as the pronoun "he" appears to be directly connected to "Alexander Hamilton" (the vessel), though both may link to separate articles. How about:

ALT3: ... that years after the duel involving Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton was hit by a German and then shot three times by John Ericsson? — KimChee (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or go even simpler: ALT4: ... that years after the duel involving Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton was shot three times by John Ericsson? Losing the "hit by a German" thing (which is an odd phrasing if we're talking about Hamilton the man) makes it harder to guess what we did. SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like Steve's version, but strike the word "years." That way people who know that Hamilton was killed by Burr, may be caught off guard wondering if some nutjob may have finished the job. ALT5: ... that after the duel involving Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton was shot three times by John Ericsson?Oooops, this was me, guess I forgot to sign it---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly live with that. It kinda works either way...if you're pretty sure - but not 100% rock-solid certain that Hamilton died in the duel - then putting "years" in there makes you doubt your own memory. If you are 100% sure then taking "years" out makes you wonder whether there is some dark corner of the event that you didn't know about, maybe someone finishing him off in an act of mercy or something crazy like that. Either way, some portion of the population will be very confused. On general principle with these things, "less is more". The less we say, the more we let people's own imaginations lead them astray, which is much better than us doing that directly. So by all means drop the word "years". SteveBaker (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gluteus minimus (fossil)

... that when Stuart Weller discovered the first Gluteus minimus in Iowa in 1902, his sister labelled them "Fish remains"?

Comment: Someone else may well be able to come up with a snappier hook.

Created by Stemonitis (talk). Self nom at 21:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: ... that Stuart Weller found the first fish remains in Iowa in 1902? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not supported by the article; there's a very good chance someone found undoubted fish remains in Iowa before. Ucucha 22:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we be playing up the confusion between a "Gluteus maximus" (a buttock) and a "Gluteus minimus" (an extinct shellfish) - I'm not quite sure how to turn that into humor, but buttocks are usually amenable to this kind of thing ("Do these pants make my Gluteus minimus look like Gluteus maximus?")...maybe not. SteveBaker (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2: ...that all Gluteus minimus are bi-lobed and broadly symmetrical, but one half is smooth and the other has conspicuous "growth lines."--Found5dollar (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3: ...that it took over 70 years to figure out Gluteus minimus may be a fish tooth?" 陣内 _Jinnai 05:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3 Makes a fine DYK entry for any other day of the year - but for AF...where is the humor? SteveBaker (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humor is largely in the eye-of-the-beholder. The humor is that it took them 70 years to decide a bone was just a fish tooth, and even then they aren't sure *(ie "may be").陣内 _Jinnai 20:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with SteveBaker, here. The humour can only come, I think, from the relationship with the gluteus maximus. I didn't word it well in the original hook, but I'm sure there's a good alternative. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

alt 4 ...that while the gluteus maximus is the last stage of the digestive system, the Gluteus minimus might be the first?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC) alt 5 ...that the process that ends with the gluteus maximus may begin with the Gluteus minimus?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are alt4 and alt5 backed by the article? SteveBaker (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little bit of a stretch, ok a big stretch, but the gluteus maximum is one's butt... the end of the digestive process... the start of that process is the mouth or teeth.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on...no way! Fish don't have gluteus maximus. That's beyond a "stretch". SteveBaker (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, there is that minor point ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I like the concept, but not sure if we can deliver... still trying to tie the two terms together: Alt 6 That animals that have a Gluteus minimus do not have a gluteus maximus?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Unpoppables

... that's unpoppable?

Created by Sbvn (talk). Nominated by Balloonman (talk) at 22:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This hook makes no sense. I cant ever verify a fact because there isn't one....--Found5dollar (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I think it's pretty obvious. It's a play on the name of the TV show, the hoook "...That's unpoppable?" leads to the immediate question of "What's unpoppable?" People look it up wondering "what's unpoppable" and it's "The Unpoppables." Circular reasoning --- which ironically, makes the hook pretty straight forward and april foolish.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it. The article is WAY too short with 433 characters. It needs over 1500 characters. Royal broil 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you're right it is a little short. I'm not sure where you are getting the count of 433 characters though... it currently has 210 words in the prose section, but that's still only 1188 bytes. I'll expand it some.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just increased it by about 2K more characters all prose.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DYKcheck was ignoring the "cast" section - I suppose it was reading it as being a list or a quote. I think the tool isn't being fair (it still shows it short). This article is ready to go.

Royal broil 02:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the test...right or wrong. Moving this back out of the "verified" section...it's obviously not verified. (And I still don't see anything funny/surprising here). SteveBaker (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple enough, removed bullets, now passes the character count. I keep seeing you say, "Where's the humor?" It's not all about a laugh, its also about catching people off guard or the unexpected. Here it's the circular reasoning involved. You go to look up what's unpoppable, and it's a play on the name. Plus, when else will we have a chance to have a one word hook---which is pretty april foolish as well. I suspect that people would have their curiosity piqued by a one word hook. Finally to say "obviously not verified" is not a valid statement, obviously Royal felt that it passed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that alot of reviewers do not like the hook. Perhaps you should suggest an alt.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced Combat Helmet (United States)

-

... that the U.S. Military is procuring plastic combat helmets (pictured)?

-

- Created by Marcus Qwertyus (talk). Self nom at 07:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-

Waiting for the contract to be awarded. If it isn't done in time we can always revise the hook. Marcus Qwertyus 07:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-

I guess I'm humor-impaired today. What about this is funny or surprising or anything like that? This would make a great DYK on any other day...but why April 1st? SteveBaker (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-

This is one of those hooks that isn't funny, but rather incredulous... most people do not think of plastic as being strong enough to provide adequate protection for the military. I think it's an ok hook. It's factual, but it doesn't SOUND factual, it SOUNDS like a joke.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-

That about summarizes my feelings. Marcus Qwertyus 17:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-

Sorry, I'm not into this proposed hook either. Plastic can certainly be quite strong. I'd be more interested to read something that is obvious to a child, like ...water flows into ___ Lake? The joke's on whoever would waste their time to click on it. Maybe ...ALT1 that combat helmets (pictured) are design to be worn on a soldiers' head? Royal broil 00:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-

I am with Steve here - an interesting article and hook, but not for the 1 April. Suggestion to the nominator - move it to T:TDYK ASAP. Materialscientist (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-

Agree with Steve and Materialscientist. The alt proposed by Royalbroil is funny, but the technique used to create this hook might be applied to many other hooks as well.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I like Royal's alt1... and it is supportable. So obvious that it is dumb and a MUST!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think it will just spoil the April's set. Materialscientist (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-

I agree. It's not funny or surprising - it doesn't belong here. We have enough good stuff - we can toss out the junk. SteveBaker (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Verified hooks

Non-eligible Candidates

Archibald Butt

... that most of the passengers who died in the sinking of the RMS Titanic were well-respected, but one was widely known as a Major Butt?

Hope this works; I'm not sure whether this is technically eligible in terms of date of creation, but perhaps we can work it in somewhere. I can definitely work on expanding it (I'm doing some research in the history of the Taft Administration), but 5x might be a reach. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there were working class passengers in second and third class, I am not sure if "most" applies, perhaps "many"? However, the article has not been expanded, and has actually shrunk somewhat since the previous April. KimChee (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to locate some additional material this week and try for a reasonable expansion. If I can get it reasonably qualified, then we can fiddle with the hook wording. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No way that this is going to undergo a 5 fold increase in size between now and the 1st.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Powers (horse)

... that the Allied Powers participated in horse racing?

Created by Kjware (talk). Nominated by AngChenrui (talk) at 12:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is better than the original hook (ALT1): that the Allied Powers became famous from running, not from fighting? ANGCHENRUI ^Talk ♨ 08:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article on the horse's trainer Michael Bell (racehorse trainer) is created, I think we can come up with an even better hook by perhaps playing on the "bell" word. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk ♨

Clean Up Templates need to be addressed.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a few weeks or so, I might work on the article. Not really free now. I went ahead and nominated it just so as to gain clearance in all aspects perhaps except article quality. Thank you! ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Clean up templates any more, but still waiting on inline citations..... --Found5dollar (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues still not addressed. Moved to Non-eligible, but if issues are fixed can be moved back up.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth certificates

How accurate do these have to be?

See Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Release_of_the_birth_certificate, (too small to really make out name).

"DYK that birth certificates may be filed in English in Indonesia?" (BTW, all B.S. as far as I know!) Student7 (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article has not been expanded 5x in the past year, and it is very doubtful you could add that much in the few days we have.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Secret Chamberpot of Azerbaijan

... that Harry Potter is female?

Created by Evilgidgit (talk). Nominated by E2eamon (talk) at 01:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one reference, and it is dubious at best. It gives a plot line not supported by the p This article needs a lot of help and, IMO, is actually closer to being an WP:AFD candidate than AFD candidate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...I suppose you're right. I just couldn't pass this up because it made a great hook. Withdrawing nom. --E♴(talk) 04:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Internet is kept.

... that the Internet (pictured) is stored in a library in Egypt.

Article has grown from a stub over the past year. SteveBaker (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing it, but you have two links in there. One is for the Internet Archive which is currently approximately 30K in size, but was 29K last year. The other is for Bibliotheca Alexandrina which is currently at about 13K, but was over 8K a year ago---and has been over 7K going back to at least 2007. I do not see how either of these qualifies as a 5X increase in size or as a stub?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flying penguins

... that the Guardian News Editor thought he had been scooped by his biggest rivals on one of the most important science stories of the year, until he recognized Prof Alid Loyas name?

Comment: The hook was proposed by user:Balloonman. I only adjusted it a bit.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Mbz1 (talk). Self nom at 18:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article needs a LOT of work...as it is right now, I doubt it would withstand an AfD - so it may not still exist by April 1st. But in any case, I don't think we should write DYK hooks about other people's April Fools pranks. SteveBaker (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So bad :( OK, then, I withdraw this nomination. Thanks for the comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an article with that many reliable sources, all internationally known, be deleted in an AFD? The argument to keep would be very strong (multiple independent reliable sources). Are DYK articles expected to be at B level or not acceptable? Royal broil 01:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I respect SteveBaker's opinion, it is often tricky to predict how an article will fare at AfD. I think WP:NOTNEWS is one of the more common justifications used at AfD these days, so that would probably be the argument that would come up for deleting this one. I'm not saying I agree that is the case here, but it's always something to watch out for when creating articles. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Qrsdogg. It would be sad to see this article thrown out of any DYK queue for some thing that probably wouldn't ever happen. I think that articles on other April Fool's Day jokes are a great direction. Especially ones the were ranked by a major website (MSN) as one of the best of any decade. That implies enduring notability. Royal broil 03:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But extreme notability is a bad thing here. So many people have heard of or seen the BBC fake documentary that this is going to be too well known to fool a large enough percentage of our english-language readership. It's going to come across as just another "wannabe" April Fool where we can't come up with something clever of our own. To add insult to injury, the article itself is poorly written - totally non-encyclopedic in style - and it relies heavily on "fair use" images. I really don't want to see this on our AF front page. SteveBaker (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Brits know it, but us Yanks are clueless!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the article itself is poorly written - totally non-encyclopedic in style - and it relies heavily on "fair use" images." Oh, really? How many images the article has? The article has 2 images. How many fair use images the article has? The article has one fair use image. So, the question is how heavily the article relies on "fair use" images (in plural)? And because that part of your comment is absolutely not the case, I am going to assume that the first part of your comment "poorly written - totally non-encyclopedic in style" is also not the case. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say what Balloonman said - that the Brits are probably the only people who can figure this one out. It will be an interesting read for the rest of the world. I see what Steve is talking about with some style issues - they can be addressed. For example, a quotation box in the lead is very unusual. A single fair use image is permitted per WP:NFCI #6. Royal broil 05:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC are going to be showing it on their US cable channel - they gave a sneak preview of it on their news show earlier this evening. SteveBaker (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When? I would have liked to watch it.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess... in about 3.5 weeks on a Friday...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a safe guess! They were carefully unspecific (let's face it, if you said "April 1st" then everyone would guess). It was at the end of their early evening news show. They said something like: "A groundbreaking documentary about Adelie penguins (cue shot of perfectly normal, bored-looking penguins)...showing on this channel in a little under a month"...something like that. SteveBaker (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is the case, the article could make a good hook on April 1, if it is synchronized with the show. And this ""A groundbreaking documentary about Adelie penguins (cue shot of perfectly normal, bored-looking penguins" could be used in the hook.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and here's yet another opinion about the article that is " poorly written - totally non-encyclopedic in style - and it relies heavily on "fair use" images." :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of the fluff/unencyclopedic stuff as I saw it... we can't say so and so "probably thought" or other things along those lines, we have to present the facts as documented.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more copy editing which hopefully improves it slightly - even if sources call something beautiful, I'm inclined to think we shouldn't repeat it, as beauty is inherently POV. I also agree with Steve though that repeating old AF pranks is a bit boring and tired - we should be making our own up instead. The problem with the current hook as well is that it is true and not at all misleading, which after all is the point of the AF DYKs. SmartSE (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR to present hooks that are factual to articles that are so incredible as to be unbelievable. As for hooks about past AFD jokes... I agree, unless the joke itself was notable. *I* like this one because it was a little more elaborate and coordinated than most media pranks. Most media pranks are single organizations, this one is notable because it was coordinated between 3 sources.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a hook for this article is currently in Prep 3, probably soon to be moved into Queue 2, so if you still want it to be considered here, a decision should be made soon. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. That's fine let it be there. I withdraw my nomination here. I am only not sure, if I am allowed physically delete all other users comments.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't remove the comments. You just move this section into the "Non-eligible Candidates" section. Royal broil 04:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automucophagy

... that eating boogers has been described as one of the best ways to stay healthy?

Created by Bbarnwel (talk). Nominated by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) at 20:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we hold off on this until april fools day? It seems like it would make a great hook. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated on the main DYK page, there are issues with this nomination, not least of which is that the article largely duplicates nose-picking and has had a merge-to template placed on it (by me). Also, if as many of the sources are online as the article indicates, why no URLs to allow a reviewer to check them out? - Dravecky (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am willing to fix the duplication concern and to provide reliable URL citations.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge templete still has to be worked out. --Found5dollar (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article no longer exists. --Found5dollar (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Fleming & Mercedes

...that Ian Fleming's fictional gadget-laden car was based on a Mercedes?

(You all guessed "Aston Martin" - right? :-) SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the linked articles seem to have been expanded at all. SmartSE (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's true. Argh! Unfortunately, all three articles are pretty complete - it's hard to imagine expanding any of them significantly enough to fulfill the demands of the DYK rules. Oh well, I guess this one is a bust. SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Operations

...Flowers have roots in Paris?

14x expanded by Jarhed (talk). Self nom at 04:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sales operations article is not new or expanded, and does not appear to have even ever been edited by the nominator. This goes for the other two linked articles in the hook. Benea (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbo Bakeries USA

...that a Savage has decided that it needs a new Bimbo?

14x expanded by Jarhed (talk). Self nom at 04:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbo Bakeries USA was created back in September 2009 and has been fairly stable sizewise since then. The nominator does not appear to have edited it. Benea (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic (train)

...that Sonic is a name of a Japanese train?

ALT ...that Sonic can run at speeds in excess of 80mph. SteveBaker (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So can the hedgehog. A better one might be: ... that Sonic can only travel up to 130 km/h.

A better hook is needed before i will review this.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also this was not expanded 5x in the past year. You still have time, but it looks doubtful that that much more can be added. --Found5dollar (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really enamored of this one anyway. I don't think it's good enough even if it were a valid entry...and expanding an article about a Japanese railway locomotive sufficiently to meet the rules is a lot of effort for very little gain. SteveBaker (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 ... that Sonic regularly runs at a speed of 130 km/h, but only in Japan? Spikebrennan (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3 ... that Sonic has been clocked at speeds of 130 MPH in Japan?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in coming up with new ALT's for this one. It's not recent enough to count - and the article is so complete already that there is zero prospect of expanding it by the necessary five times. So it's not going to be a DYK - no matter how good the hook. :-( SteveBaker (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOM

... that your MOM is on here and has a nice website?

Created by Paul Bedson (talk). Self nom at 04:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Balloonman once said about another article:"it is actually closer to being an WP:AFD candidate than AFD candidate."--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some more work to do on it admittedly. Thought I'd post cos it made me laugh. Paul Bedson (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is too short, has no references and the hook has a problem with using "your" when its not. Materialscientist (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]