Wikipedia

Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2009

< Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page‎ | Did You Know
April Fools' Day Main Page (talk)
14th-century depiction of Mickey Mouse
Current discussion
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024

Please use this page for discussions surrounding the creation of a "Did You Know" items for April Fool's Day 2009

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. The normal written and unwritten rules for Did You Know (DYK) are followed with one exception. For this one day only, DYK articles are allowed to be taken from the year prior to April Fool's Day, as long as they have not previously featured on DYK. This exception started in 2006 and has been utilized since.

The mission edit

This section should focus on some trivia that can be presented in a manner that is unbelievable to the reader. See the mock-up for proposed entries.


Action items edit

  1. We need to find half a dozen weird/funny/unlikely facts.
  2. Ideally these should come from new articles or expanded stubs – so we should consider where we're getting these facts from – do we need to write new articles and put them into article space shortly before April 1st? Do we need to expand stubs? What?

Another idea edit

I have an idea for at least one set. Let's spoof ourselves. Let's put up some genuine new articles that are otherwise OK (sourced, lengthwise etc.) but use blindingly obvious and unsurprising hook facts: "... that BODY OF WATER will make you wet if you touch it", "... that PERSON is still dead after 150 years?", "... that REALLY COMPLICATED MATH CONCEPT cannot be done by most elementary school students", "... that INSECT SPECIES (pictured) is butt-ugly?" You get the idea. Daniel Case (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would they even have to be new articles? New articles would be better, but it's called "Did You Know". In a sense, putting things like FAs on DYK would be even more April Fools-y, wouldn't it? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus is that no normal "rules" can be broken for April tomfoolery. I think it would be cool, but many others would disagree with us. Some contributors hate the idea of having anything for April Fools, so this compromise was reached: The rules can only be bent a little bit. Royalbroil 02:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about this nom?:

April Fool's Day ... that today is April Fool's Day? (Please don't take this seriously) Ceran→//forge 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates from 2008 edit

Suggestions and ideas carried from the 2008 discussion.

Verified hooks edit

Verified hooks that have been moved to queues edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kim Jong-Il (athlete) and Gordon Brown (footballer born 1932) edit

Kim Jong-Il (athlete) edit

  • I notice that many nominations on that page are not reviewed. I don't want my nom to get lost in a timeout, so I would be grateful if someone DYKticked it here, then moved it to Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. Punkmorten (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Ticked. Your introduction phrase kills the hook for April Fool's (in my opinion). I think it's MUCH better with the hook ... that Kim Jong-Il emphasizes "Christian service and leadership throughout God's world"? Since you have the tick, would you copy and paste this nom along with my comments/tick to the April Fool's page? Royalbroil 07:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3: "... that Gordon Brown and Kim Jong-Il were both professional athletes before pursuing other careers?" this one by Found5dollar
ALT4: "... that Gordon Brown and Kim Jong-Il both started their careers as professional athletes?" this one by Tone.

--Found5dollar (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   I'm having trouble verifying that Kim was professional athlete. Olympians at that time were often amateur, so being an Olympians doesn't necessarily mean that Kim was professional. How can we verify this hook? Royalbroil 04:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
how about....
"ALT5" ... that Gordon Brown and Kim Jong-Il are both known for their athletic abilities?--Found5dollar (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, this fixes the problem now. --Tone 16:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   I can verify the ALT5 hook! Moved to verified section. Royalbroil 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown (footballer born 1932) edit

  • That makes it sound like Brown (the player) only ever scored one career goal, though, which is innacurate. More importantly, as Gordon Brown (the PM) was only 9 years old in 1960, it immediately gives away that we aren't in fact talking about him and scuppers the whole point of the April Fool hook..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who already knows Gordon Brown's age in 1960 probably already knows that he didn't play pro football. Mine is funnier, and accurate, but whatever. ;-) —Kevin Myers 15:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as Brown scored 1 goal in the 1960–61 season, which ran from August 1960 until May 1961, he could well have scored the goal in 1961 :-) The most accurate way to word your alt would be: "... that Gordon Brown scored one goal in the 1960–61 football season?" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Length and date of 5x expansion verified. I have not verified any of these hooks because we need to decide which working to use. It probably will work for April Fool's Day. Royalbroil 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the original nominator I personally prefer ALT1, as my view is that the April Fool hooks should be items which seem 100% plausible but when you click to read more you find that it doesn't actually refer to what you were expecting. The one about him scoring one professional goal in 1961 isn't plausible unless the reader knows so little about the British Prime Minister that he/she could think he's about 70 years of age. But that's just my 2¢..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you must remember that lots of us dumb Americans don't know who Gordon Brown is, nevermind how old he is :-D -RunningOnBrains 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like this

ALT3: "... that Gordon Brown and Kim Jong-Il were both profesional athletes before pursuing other careers?"--Found5dollar (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, great! Though I would prefer "... that Gordon Brown and Kim Jong-Il both started their careers as profesional athletes?" since no detail on Brown's later career is known, according to the article. --Tone 21:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as Brown retired from professional football in his 30s, in an era when footballers only earned about the same as the average factory worker, one would have to assume that he did pursue some other form of career for the next 30 years...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the hook is "started their careers as..." or similar I would think the politicians of the same name did start as pro athletes but wouldn't consider that interesting enough to click on (through I'm sure some would). Saying "...best known as professional athletes" or "are remembered for their athletic prowess" telegraphs the deception a little but is more catching. Something to think about. --Boston (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Verified ALT3 (and similar). I'm having trouble verifying Kim Jong-Il was a professional athlete. See above. Royalbroil 04:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Nose George edit

Restored to this page from the queue by consensus. Gatoclass (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know he has been veriefied beofre, but this currently isnt.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I had verified this earlier, before it was reposted. Royalbroil 03:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to: ""In 1893, the Governor of Wyoming wore the skin of outlaw Big Nose George to his inaugural ball?" Spikebrennan (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It got ruled out as too obscure. Sticking to the facts now - cos truth is sometimes stranger than, well, fiction...!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkie edit

 
Sparkie
  •   Date, length, 2 references verify the hook. One of the references call him Sparkie Williams ... a more effective hooks might be:

The Story of Menstruation edit

Taken from 2008 suggestions
  • Nominator was myself, several years ago now, if you want to credit someone. Not that worried about it, though :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Date checks, source checks. Needs expansion from 1220 characters to above 1500 characters and then this one is ready to run. Royalbroil 02:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. If you use this tool to count the characters, without adding the references and external links, you come up with 1229 characters. I'd love to see this article be used because the hook is AWESOME! Royalbroil 14:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really wanted the article for April Fool's Day, so I did significant expansion on the article to get it well past the 1500 characters point. Someone else will have to verify that part. There were lots of great book sources available on google books. The sentence on the flow looking white snow instead of blood red is classic! Royalbroil 17:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT 1: *... that the flow is snow white in Disney's The Story of Menstruation? —Kevin Myers 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT 2: *... that in Disney's The Story of Menstruation, the flow is snow white? --Una Smith (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "readable prose size" is now 2063 bytes. Seems to pass on all counts, provided the age requirement is relaxed. --Una Smith (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   The age requirement is waved for April Fool's Day. All articles that are new or have undergone 5x expansion since April 1, 2008 are eligible for April Fool's Day 2009. Royalbroil 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Bible edit

oh dear ... you haven't said "that", but "what" ... well done. nice   hookVictuallers (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this hook, too. But some policy wonk will ask for a hook with "definite facts that are mentioned in the article". Hope I'm wrong. --74.13.125.103 (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does everything think about not running this hook at this time and saving this odd format and very odd happening for next April Fool's main page DYK? Is it odd and interesting enough? Royalbroil 15:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree this article is a good candidate for the AFMP. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This thing (me) thinks so, too. --74.13.127.135 (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policy wonk? Break the rules! This is April Fools... you are not telling lies, so proceed Victuallers (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ALT1)... that a Bible published in 1631 commanded readers to commit adultery?

Spikebrennan (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the article, as I believe most usual rules including I4 apply on April Fools' Day. I also capitalized "Bible" according to WP:Manual of Style (capitalization)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents. Art LaPella (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Date, length, reference checked. I suggest a cleaner ALT2 below: Royalbroil 04:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods (dog) edit

  •   Date, length, reference checks on the original hook. The original hook is excellent. The main problem is that the only the first paragraph of the three is actually on topic! The second paragraph is off-topic as it describes the history of the event. The third paragraph is also off-topic since it describes the other dog that won the contest. This article needs to be primarily about Tiger Woods. If the focus can be changed by expanding the content about Tiger Woods, then this article should run. What else has the dog done? What contests did it win to get to this level? Did it place in any shows? Royalbroil 00:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded article while getting rid of the fluff about the Westminster Kennel Club and Stump.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Successfully defluffed and ready to run! Royalbroil 04:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt hook ... that on the day Tiger Woods announced the birth of a son, Tiger Woods lost one of the most prestigious events of the year? --- I prefer the original one, but this one might work as well. I don't like it as well because it is obvious that we are talking about two different tiger woods.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt2 ... that even though he was competing against ten year olds, Tiger Woods almost won one of the most prestigous events in the country when he was only seven?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the original hook the best - short and sweet ... and juicy. Royalbroil 03:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


New England (medieval) and China, Kagoshima edit

New England (medieval) edit

Created by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk). Self nom at 06:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Date, length checks. ALT2 is excellent, but the hook isn't mentioned directly in the article, but some of the references are named after it. Close enough for me. Royalbroil 00:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Alexius told them of a land over the sea that had formerly been under emperor of Constantinople, but was now occupied by heathens.[9] The emperor granted this land to the English" is there. Johnbod (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're assuming that I (and the reader) know that Constantinople was part of the Byzantine Empire at that time. The city was part of lots of countries over its lengthy history. Royalbroil 11:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my text; it's more or less a quote I think. This is just a reffing point, isn't it? The Byzantine Emperor has already been located at Constantinople in the text. (PS Byzantium=Constantinople; the Empire only existed while it held the city.). Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since "Byzantine Empire" is just a neologism for the Roman Empire in the middle ages, why not
... that New England used to be part of the Roman Empire?
-- Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Byzantine Empire" is what WP & everyone else call it! Does "Roman" improve the quality of the hook? No, it doesn't. Does it reduce the "accuracy"? Yes, significantly. Alt changed below, to "Byzantine" (changed back by the pointy Deacon). Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it doesn't change the accuracy, as the Byzantine Empire is just another (the modern) term for the Roman Empire in the middle ages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"ALT" ... that New England used to be part of the Roman Empire, and China is still part of Japan?--Found5dollar (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense! The Byzantine Empire is the continuation of the Roman Empire, but the terms are not interchangeable. To call the 11th century B Empire the Roman Empire is just wrong in English, and would never be accepted at normal DYK. Anyway there's no gain; the Byzantine Empire is on the whole more improbable than the Roman here, and just sounds better. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, it's hardly nonsense. While it is true that the Byzantine Empire is not very often called the Roman Empire in modern European languages (though Gibbon saw no problems doing it), it does happen sometimes (ignoring the fact "Roman Empire" is what Arabs, Turks, "Byzantines" themselves as well as, very often, western Christians, called it). Being a "Continuation" of the Roman Empire is a rather euphemistic round about way of saying it is the Roman Empire ... but at any rate no-one would dispute that for our purposes this is factually acceptable. The surprising use of "Roman Empire" here is the whole point of the April 1 thingie. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That it is "factually acceptable" is exactly what I am disputing, and very strongly! Anyway, the article does not contain this (nor should it). Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one is pretty strong, support! --Tone 23:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly object to "Roman" per above. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support combining these, because the addition is so clearly not true to such a large number of people that it will kill the surprise. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they are better kept seperate, in different updates, as the periods & locations are so different. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the combined hooks and some one else actulay combined them. I am just trying to reduce the number of hooks in any way i see so that we have less problems tryign to figure out what we are dong with them all. Plus i think it still works and would efinatly get people tpo click on the pages ot see what china and new england we are talking about. Byzantine empire may be better to use than Roman.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are two strong classic Foolsy-style hooks, & looking below we don't actually have a susplus of these. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China, Kagoshima edit

 
  • ... that the Japan Self-Defense Forces, constitutionally prohibited from deploying outside of Japan, nevertheless have a base near the most beautiful beach in China (pictured)?
  • ... that education in China is controlled by a committee consisting entirely of Japanese people?
    • Self-nom. It was ~550 characters of text before and ~2750 now, so it barely scrapes by the 5x expansion criteria, but only if you count the list of schools in the "Education" section. If that isn't enough I can expand it a bit more. and now around 2900 even without the list. cab (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"ALT2" ... that New England used to be part of the Roman Empire, and China is still part of Japan?--Found5dollar (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 looks like the best one so far. cab (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Length, date, unable to verify the location of the town for ALT 2 as the references are written in Japanese - assumed in good faith. Interesting double hook! Royalbroil 03:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam de Stratton edit

 

Created by Lampman (talk). Self nom at 13:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "de" is optional when a name is modernised; I've left it out because it might give away the joke. Also I think the illustration adds a certain absurd quality to the entry. I know pictures are supposed to be in the article, but I think we should be able to make an exception in this case. It's important to note that this is merely an example of toenail clippings, not the actual nails, which are probably lost forever, if they ever existed.Lampman (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Length, date, reference take in good faith. I love the image! Royalbroil 01:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genius (TV series) edit

5x expanded by ISD (talk). Self nom at 09:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Length (5x expansion) and date verified. However, the hook is not sourced in the article. Also, none of the article you reference mentioned this particular "genius" idea, although others are mentioned. Maybe you could change the hook to an idea that has a reference source if you do not have one for this idea. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added references and changed the article a bit so that it suits the hook more. ISD (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   OK. Length (5x expansion), date and source for hook verified. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   This is more of an April Fool's hook; I wouldn't feel comfortable using it for a regular DYK, as it's a little misleading (the idea was on the show; the idea itself isn't the show). For April Fool's it would be fine, just let me know if you want to have it moved there. If it's kept as a regular DYK, though, I think we should try to get a different hook. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to move it to the April Fool's section, you can. It should be pointed out that I've already got a DYK listed there if that is a problem. ISD (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SS Letitia edit

  •   snatched from the queue just in time! It's ready to go and has been approved. Royalbroil 00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love this one... but how about a slight rewording?

cheese trees edit

 
  Date, length, image license is right for the main page. Hook is off-line and assumed in good faith. Royalbroil 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be used as a lead hook; the image shows you right away that what's growing on the tree isn't cheese. I　would be more likely to click if there weren't an image. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything edit

OK, it's a joke entry and a self-reference, but it's also perfectly accurate. Alternatives could include 'but useful information about nothing'. Modest Genius talk 23:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from current suggestions. Royalbroil 03:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, this is my favorite catchline so far. --haha169 (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Length, date verified. Royalbroil 02:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Roth edit

 

Created/expanded by Boston (talk).

  • I don't get it. How does this fool anyone? Royalbroil 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Date, length, reference checks. Royalbroil 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special thanks for verifying! I was disappointed I didn't get this article to DYK when it was first made and I appreciate the 2nd chance. Do we want to remove the capitalization and italics from asleep in the bread aisle to make it trickier? -- --Boston (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna say the same thing. As it stands now it gives away the joke. Lampman (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Royalbroil 01:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of Ray J edit

Created/expanded by Dev 103 (talk). Nominated by Boston (talk) at 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Holyland (Wisconsin) and Egypt, Pennsylvania edit

The Holyland (Wisconsin) edit

Does anyone get this one? It's a word play on the Holyland area in Jerusalem for a small region in the United States that was settled by German settlers. Royalbroil 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That hook seems to telegraph the real meaning too clearly, it could almost be used as a regular DYK. Suggest ALT "... that the Holy Land was originally settled by Roman Catholics?" Yeah, we are tampering with the spelling, and basically dissing the Native Americans who might have once lives there, but if we're trying to fool people, let's really fool them. --Boston (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good. Did you check to make sure that the article meets the length (over 1500 characters), date (new or expanded five fold since April 1, 2008), and click on the reference to make sure that the hook is verified? Royalbroil 04:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 . Very-fried.- --Boston (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To save on the number of hooks, we could combine this one with Egypt, Pennsylvania:
  ... Genius! --Boston (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC) - Genius! --Boston (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Royalbroil 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant idea! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt, Pennsylvania edit

- Created by User:Alphageekpa, nom by Spikebrennan (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Date, length verified, hooks assumed in good faith. I prefer the second hook. Royalbroil 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More alternatives:
  • ... that the American Cement Company ran power lines from its plants in the United States all the way to Egypt?
  • ... that just a few centuries ago, Egypt had no pyramids?
  • ... that the government now admits that one of Egypt's most famous old stone structures wasn't built until 1756?
  • ... that German settlers built the oldest structures in Egypt?
  • ... that from the time of its earliest human inhabitation up until 1808, all the schools in Egypt taught in German?
  • something about the "early inhabitants of Egypt" and the American Revolution (referencing all those Eye of Providence conspiracy theories)
Cheers, cab (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of Cab's hooks are better than mine. Bravo! Spikebrennan (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that in the 18th century, the English built a fort in Egypt to protect Germans from Indians?

Spikebrennan (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  ... Genius! --Boston (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think this is the best one. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need to fix the spelling of The Holyland not Holy Land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm Spartacus! (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree with Boston's comment above: "Yeah, we are tampering with the spelling ... but if we're trying to fool people, let's really fool them." cab (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chili Bowl edit

Does anyone understand this hook? It's a sarcastic look at how pay per view shows such weird topics like midget wrestling. It's actually the top midget car racing event in the United States! It has nothing to do with short people, it's a play on the short hand abbreviation that midget car racing fans use. Royalbroil 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ALT2) "... that pay-per-view HBO televised a chili bowl in which midgets competed for prizes?" Note I've tampered with the capitalization. If we're going to do AFD DYK's, we should give ourselves license to take whatever liberties we need to to make the hooks really work as "gotchas". Joyless pedantry seems to be taking over the regular DYK process and this is our only holiday from that trend. --Boston (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ALT3)... that pay-per-view HBO televised a chili bowl in which midgets raced for prizes? A minor change to an action word puts a little more interest in the hook (IMHO). I have no problem with removing the capitalization. Royalbroil 04:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 . Very-fried.- --Boston (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kayabukiya Tavern edit

Is this funny enough for April Fool's Day DYK? I'm very interested with that hook! Royalbroil 19:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would actually be a cool April Fool's Day TFA! :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Haha! Indeed, very interesting, and now verified. – RyanCross (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transferred from suggestions page. Royalbroil 04:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Winston Churchill (schooner) edit

  Now only ~1220 characters in text. Kablammo (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article a bit more. No objection to it being an April Fools DYK as long as it is guaranteed to appear. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Date, size, and reference confirmed; this would be an excellent DYK for April Fools (it's hard to imagine a better hook). Kablammo (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transferred from suggestions page. Royalbroil 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To preserve the "April Foolsiness", would it be worth removing the year from the hook, as 1972 was quite a few years after Churchill (the man) died.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Those who know he died in 1965 are going to click the link to see what is meant, Those who don't know will probably click the link anyway. IMHO it work well with or without the date, will let admins decide. BTW, current edition of the Signpost claims that this article was a 2008 DYK April Fools joke hook! A bit hard seeing as it was October before I created it! <g> Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to tie this hook in with the lesbian hooks...someting like Sir Winston Churchill once cruised by where two Lesbians went down? Not even sure if this is correct but it would be damn funny.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's pushing it a bit too far. Besides, there's no guarantee that the articles will be listed at the same time. Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SS Indus (1945) edit

(copied from T:TDYK)

  • Note: - Possible April Fool's Day DYK? Will leave it for you to decide.
Definitely, in my opinion - especially as 1st April 2009 is right in between the first and second F1 GPs of the 2009 season! NB. A bit short at the moment (1248 Bytes), but plenty of time for expansion. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be excellent to spoof the reigning Formula One World Driver's champion on April Fool's Day! You can suggest add it to the upcoming April Fool's Day DYK at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. The 5 day rule is waved for the event.
Do you have any more content for the article other than the history of who owned it and what they named it? The article doesn't say much at present. Did it have any missions during WWII? How did the UK seize it from its German builders? What did each owner use it for? Royalbroil 05:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult with merchant ships rather than passenger ships as they don't get as much coverage. Sasbeck did not see any war service as she was launched in March 1945 and still uncompleted when the war ended. Apart from Empire Ardle, her other names make searching for her on the internet hard work as they all throw up many thousands of search results. Searching with the company names doesn't help. There is a book Empire ships of World War II by W H Mitchell and L A Sawyer which may have further info. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article a bit more. Hopefully it's now big enough. Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Just barely big enough at just over 1500 characters. Date works. I looked though the sources until I found the proper source for the original name of the ship while it was under German control and I fixed the cite. That expansion helped with fleshing out the content. Royalbroil 06:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbit (unit) edit

  • ... that the grain trade in northern Wales was traditionally conducted by hobbits, although hobbit contracts were sometimes ruled illegal in court? — New article by Amble (talk). Self nom at 02:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... etc., etc. Is the article meant to be put in the mainspace now, or kept until later so it's "new" on Apr. 1? It's currently in my scratch space. Please excuse me if I'm posting out of place here. --Amble (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requirements are waived for April Fool's. Feel free to create it and mention here that it was moved to mainspace so that someone can take a look at it. bibliomaniac15 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to mainspace. --Amble (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Length, date verified, facts off-line. My favorite is ALT3 - it is phrased so general and it uses the unit of measurement as if it were the race. Royalbroil 00:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources should be online, mainly through Google Books. If any of them are unlinked / don't work, let me know and I'll fix them. --Amble (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like ALT3 as well. bibliomaniac15 01:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fourth that. ALT1 struck me as pretty good at first, but ALT3 has the perfect generalized wording to fool a reader. Jamie☆S93 20:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Han solo edit

  •   Article is too short - currently only 696 characters including spaces. We can't waive the rules that far. You have almost 2 months. Royalbroil 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also recommend dropping the word "trilobite" - it would look like we meant "Han Solo". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a bit; nearly 1200 characters now. I don't plan on making it any bigger, so take it or leave it.
How about
"... that Han solo was discovered in a fossil bed in southern China in 2005? Hesperian 00:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Still too short at about 1200 characters. I hope that someone can help you out and find about 300 more characters (without bloating it), because this is a great hook! Royalbroil 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now 1441 (but the sentence I added, though interesting, is only tenuously relevant to the article.[1]) Hesperian 01:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a little bit of info about other animals named for Harrison Ford. SMSpivey (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Date, length is about 1800 characters, reference #2 verifies - although it says Southern China. We could just say China. Royalbroil 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one could be: ... that a team of archaeologists discovered a fossilized Han Solo in the rocks of Southern China? Considering what they did to Han Solo in the movie. --Tone 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one is GREAT!--Found5dollar (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"solo" must be in lower case; upper case is just plain wrong. Hesperian 13:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has decided to allow capitalization changes if it means that it won't give away a hook. Royalbroil 13:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pains and Penalties Bill 1820 edit

  • Ooooh! Scandals! Unless we are saving this hook for April Fools' Day, I suggest mentioning on MainPage the year and being specific so that people would know this Princess of Wales is not Diana. --PFHLai (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the court proceedings described in the article have really established who slept with the Princess. --PFHLai (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
April 1st would be ideal, if this selected. There is no proof that Caroline committed adultery but there is proof that she and Pergami slept in the same tent while on a Mediterranean cruise. DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. --PFHLai (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Length, date verified, facts off-line. Both articles are eligible for DYK if the second hook was selected. Royalbroil 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Cod of Massachusetts edit

I just recently put this on the main DYK page, it may be better for this.

 
  • ... that there have been three Sacred Cods of Massachusetts? —  5x expansion by Found5dollar (talk). I think this is 5x expanded. Also, this article may be better for the April fools day DYK section. Self nom at 03:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   5x expansion and reference verified. While it's a good hook, I'm sure it could be spun even better! Royalbroil 05:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about these?
ALT 2: ... that not to be out done by the House of Representatives' Sacred Cod, the Massachusetts Senate has their own "Holy Mackerel"?--Found5dollar (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT 3: ... that after the theft of the Sacred Cod of Massachusetts, known as the "cod-napping", the Massachusetts House of Representatives refused to legislate until it was found? —Kevin Myers 17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT 4: ... the Massachusetts House of Representatives refused to legislate until the Sacred Cod of Massachusetts was rescued from cod-nappers? —Kevin Myers 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oooo, I like ALT 4. Gets alot of the quirkiness in.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, ALT 4 is G-R-E-A-T and it is sourced! It's got the right tone. Royalbroil 05:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Green Ginger edit

A few points of note: The place is very real, but the references are not quite up to FA standard. The Llenassac reference that provides the joyous combination for the hook is not for the faint-hearted. The current version of the article is possibly a fraction short of the 1500 DYK policy, but it can easily be expanded a bit with some more research. Article now circa 1500. I am not at all familiar with stubs for urban areas and there may be a few issues I have neglected in that regard. I am not happy with the 'other uses' idea but a dab page might well just be red links. I'll draft a Land of Green Ginger (disambiguation) here. Suggestions welcome. Ben MacDui 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Date, length verified. The second ALT hook is referenced, the first hook isn't as solid. I think the second hook is a bit more interesting. Royalbroil 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehog Pie edit

 
  •   No, sorry, that hook is just too misleading. Try a hook that has something to do with the article's content, please! Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT: ... that while hedgehogs are eaten in some cultures, Hedgehog Pie is not a savory pie made with the meat from the spiny mammals, but a 1970s electric folk group from Newcastle-Upon-Tyne? Wizardman 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, not bad, I guess we could use that or something like it for an April Fool's Day hook. Gatoclass (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   This ALT2 is a real April Fool's Day gem! Verified date, length, hook is easily found in the references. I love the picture! Royalbroil 00:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Plague of 1518 edit

I wish I had nominated this article when I first expanded it in August '08. Anyway, this is one of the weirdest things ever. Personally, I think the "5x expansion" and "new article" rules should be ignored for this one day and we should collect all of the strangest articles from the past year. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those rules are already ignored (more precisely, modified) for this one day. See the top of this page, where it says " ... DYK articles are allowed to be taken from the year prior to April Fool's Day ... " Art LaPella (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Date, length, reference verified except for the St. Anthony portion. I'm glad you didn't run it in August - this is a sad but true April Fool's gem! Royalbroil 01:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must have pulled the ergotism/St. Anthony connection from the ergotism article itself. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Lynott (song) edit

 
  Length, date, fact verified. Royalbroil 04:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is the song that rather than Lynott which is referred to here, to use the picture seems less like fooling and more like fibbing. Also, I'm not sure if references fully support that the song has been "dismissed as..." rather than just "described as...". That being said, excellent for inclusion in April Fool DYK! --Boston (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  ALT hook verified as well. --Boston (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lust Control edit

Created by DantheCowMan (talk). Self nom at 06:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't see what's "April Foolsy" about that hook..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christian music in general is terrified of anything that even hints of controversy, weather it agrees with their message or not. Bands can suffer dramatic consequences from things as small as swearing (Pedro the Lion, The W’s) or other lyrics that may offend (Steve Taylor). Or having an unusual sound ( Philadelphia), or "crossing over" into the general market (Stryper). It’s worse when bands talk about things like drugs, violence, or racial issues (Ruby Joe, Stryken). Graphic imagery can also cause issues (Vengeance Rising), and sex…. Sex is the ultimate sin. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josh McDowell is also puzzling for those who recognize him. He's best known for apologetics (arguing for Christianity). He's also known for preaching sexual morality, but that isn't what you think of first. Art LaPella (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, you need to spice it up a lot. Not many people know who Josh McDowell is. Can you source ALT1 ... that Christian rock band Lust Control is know for their explicit lyrical content, which is devoted to masturbation and pornography? Should we stretch it a little farther and change Christian rock to Jesus music, as Christian rock is a derivative of it?! Royalbroil 12:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One man's irony is another man's blank stare (AH, in-jokes). I thought of something similar, but it didn't flow well. Sounds better when you say it; consider it sourced. Except that Jesus Music as a genre went out with the 1970s.... so yeah, just a bit of a stretch on that bit. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 (trying to avoid in-jokes) ... that Lust Control is frowned upon in Christian music circles? Ben MacDui 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like ALT2 the most. I hope almost anyone can understand it. Royalbroil 23:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  ALT2 Length, date, fact verified. --Boston (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about just Alt3 ... that Lust Control is frowned upon by many Christian groups? The "Christian music" above is a give away that "Lust Control" is a musical group, thus it looses some of the hook. By making it "Christian groups" the hook remains essentially what Ben suggested above, but hides the fact that we are talking about a musical group.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SM UB-6, SM UB-16 edit

5x expanded by Bellhalla (talk). Self nom at 21:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  (checked using User:Shubinator/DYKcheck) Length, history, reference verified for all the hooks. I like the April Fool's one the most. Shubinator (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to move this to the April Fool's section if it's worthy enough. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it hard to judge the humor in this ALT2 hook because my brain is biased after reading the original hook. The capitalized and italicized Recruits gives it away. Maybe it could be worded ALT3 ... that it took two German submarines, UB-6 and UB-16, to dispatch two World War I Royal Navy recruits? It that accurate enough but twisted enough to be interesting? Royalbroil 19:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about two hooks, one right after another in the list, as follows:
* ... that UB-6 sunk HMS Recruit on May 1, 1915?
* ... that UB-16 sunk HMS Recruit on August 9, 1917?

Spikebrennan (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←That would be pretty funny, too. (I bolded the nommed articles and italicized the British shipname.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT 4 ... that the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Recruit was sunk by UB-6 in 1915, and by UB-16 in 1917? Modest Genius talk 01:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SS Lesbian (1915), SS Lesbian (1923) edit

  • surely someone could think of a great hook for this.....

Created/expanded by Mjroots (talk). Nominated by the_ed17 (talk) at 15:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that Spikebrennan's hook is spot on and a little politically incorrect. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all too politically incorrect for me. I bet WikiProject LGBT wouldn't approve of any of these hooks. Royalbroil 01:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the issue with the Wikiproject and asked for their input. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the Lesbians that I've known would find these hooks hilarious because it would be playing on people's notions and biases.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think they're hilarious. But I suggest incorporating something about going down. I'm Wikipedia's biggest lesbo and I approve this message. --Moni3 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT 3... that a British Lesbian went down at the hands of the Germans in the First World War, and another went down at the hands of the French in the Second World War? Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that we could count on our resident lesbian to push the envelope from a questionable PC hook, to OMG DID I JUST READ THAT! ;-)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have any clever suggestions to make, I'm another member of [WP:LGBT]] with no problem with the joke. Aleta Sing 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think we would be more likely to get opposition from the other end of the political spectrum that the LGBT community... which could create an interesting hook:
  • Wow, ALT3 sure has a lot of energy! I'm closer to the other side of the spectrum, a member of WikiProject Christian music. I'm not conservative on the lesbian topic, but I do know people that would be offended by ALT3. I blushed a little from that hook - OMG I JUST READ THAT! I'm not opposed to any of them. Let's see what everyone else thinks. Royalbroil 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Alt3 but I think a Laugh-In-esque zoink ala the man in the boat would be cherry. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  The length and date for both articles are verified. Royalbroil 12:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another proposed revision of ALT 3 - now ALT 5... that German seamen forced a British lesbian to go down during the First World War, and the French made another go down during the Second World War? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the one that is way too risque on the LGBT page, this one is the winner! Nice turn of the phrases.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to verified section per Royalbroil's verification — Bellhalla (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? edit

So which one should we use? Please tally below. Royalbroil 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Chang-Díaz edit

 

Created/expanded by EmanBos (talk). Nominated by Boston (talk) at 07:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   First, article is too short. Second, fact is not mentioned in the article. Date looks good. I am uneasy with the license history of the image, even though it is a Commons image. Royalbroil 11:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 
  • Thanks for looking at the hook. The article has been lengthened and the bra-stuffing incident is specifically mentioned is the article now. I understand that something being on Commons isn't total reassurance it's okay -- I have worked hard to get copyright violations deleted from Commons in the past. But this picture was made by the United States Department of Justice -- a Federal agency -- and is thus free of copyright according to my long-held understanding. While the picture is sort of wacky, it does look like a photo from a hidden camera and thus sort of telegraphs the real story behind the hook -- accepting bribes not enhancing bustline. I think the hook works better for AFDay without it, but presented in for group consideration nonetheless. --Boston (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, this photo of Chang-Diaz can be used instead. I am the photographer. --Boston (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Date, length, hook verified. I feel much more comfortable with the second image. I'd feel comfortable with the first image if there was a link directly to a Dept of Justice website. Royalbroil 12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be misconstrued as beign libelous?--Found5dollar (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately that's a question for lawyers, but I can't see why it would be; it only says of Wilkerson that she was accused, which is an indisputable fact. As for Chang-Díaz, it claims no causality between that incident and her victory. It's rather a question of whether it "focuses unduly on negative aspects of the biographies of living people", but I don't think it does. This is definitely one of my favourite AFDay hooks! Lampman (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoeing edit

Spikebrennan (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Date, length verified. I checked the source article and it says that 300,000 pairs where ordered (2 x 300,000 = 600,000), so the hook statistics are verified. Royalbroil 01:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL at the math. Very clever. --Boston (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a current event; everyone knows Bush is very good at ducking. This article doesn't have the same "I didn't know that" as the Big Nose George above. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, we could have it on ITN, I'll suggest it there. --Tone 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SWTPC that the mention of Bush takes away the surprise, how about ALT: ... that after two Turkish missiles were launched at a U.S. target, their manufacturer was asked to produce 600,000 more in just one week? Lampman (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banana beer edit

Spikebrennan (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Date checks, but the article needs to contain at least 1500 characters. Please expand - you have several weeks. Royalbroil 23:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I count 1800 characters, including the spaces. Ready to go. Royalbroil 00:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jackson (table tennis) edit

Spikebrennan (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   The article currently isn't long enough for Did You Know, and as far as I know, most rules including C1 apply even on April Fools' Day. Art LaPella (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art is right, minimum length rule is not changed for April Fool's. You have a few weeks to expand it past 1500 characters. Royalbroil 23:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article expanded. Eligible now? Spikebrennan (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count 990 characters, need 1500. That one sentence is WAY too long and should be broken up into many smaller sentences. New Zealand gives it away, so if you do find enough content, I think you should change the hook to say he medaled at the Olympics. Royalbroil 11:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count 887, according to this. You do need 1500 (C1). Art LaPella (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He medalled at the Commonwealth Games, not the Olympics. New Zealand is part of the misdirection-- the film director is one of the most famous people from New Zealand, which reinforces the assumption that it's about him. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded (and cleaned up, really) the article. Now 1530 characters according to my count. Punkmorten (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Date, length, Reference checks. Royalbroil 00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Lear (baseball) edit

Self-nom. Heh, King Lear as an ivy-league pitcher. Wizardman 20:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Date, length verified. Funny!, but the hook gives too much information. Please suggest another hook with less detail. This one has lots of potential. Royalbroil 01:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIV Resolution edit

... that there is a 15,000 ton ship which operates completely out of the water? New article created and self nom on 30 March 2009 by Mjroots (talk)

 

ALT'... that there is a 15,000 ton ship (pictured) which operates completely out of the water?

  • NOTE - also nominated as a regular DYK nom if this is too late or can't be used. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commented in comments section at the bottom - I think it's marginally funny but very interesting. I think this article is better suited for regular DYK - it's still eligible. Date, length meets criteria. Royalbroil 02:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  added to queue #4. Royalbroil 00:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Backus (history) edit

Created by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Date, length, reference checks. This is an excellent hook! This is my suggestion for a replacement hook if one hook has last minute issues. Royalbroil 02:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Hat edit

 
Radio Hat 1949

before Hope Lange's successful Death Wish, she wore this unusual electric device, the Radio Hat (pictured)?

This article is still in my user space; it meets the DYK standards but am I keeping it a new article. If it is not an April Fools selection, it should run on the 60th anniversary of the introduction. (Around March 23, 1949.) I can move the article to main space at any time and will do so before March 27. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio Hat was a portable radio built into a pith helmet that widely covered in the news media of the day. A personal device for listening to music that came in many colors. (Think 1949 iPod.) Too bad we can't use this picture.
The young lady (age 15) modeling the Radio Hat on the 1949 magazine cover is actress Hope Lange. In 1957 she was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in Peyton Place. Hope's character, Selena, is raped by her stepfather. She then murders him and buries his body in the woods. Hope was less fortunate in the 1974 movie, Death Wish. She was murdered by hooligans, causing Charles Bronson to go on a crime reduction spree in New York City. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one also. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I verified the hook and moved it to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Verified hooks that haven't been placed in queues, under discussion edit

Manchester Mummy edit

--credit User:Malleus Fatuorum nom by 79.64.245.35 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ALT"... that even though Hannah Beswick had no children, she was still Manchester's Mummy?
Note - not even sure if this is true, but no where in the article does it talk about any chidren so i would assume she had none.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   We can't run the hook without verifying if she had children. I don't think that the ALT hook is very interesting. Royalbroil 21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if needed edit

Hedgehog Pie edit

  Verified, but moved back to the queue in preference to Radio Hat as this one is a bit of a clunker. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

  • Aw - this was one of my favorites! Maybe it's because you're familiar with them. For the rest of the world, it's GREAT! Could you move them into the middle of queue #3 otherwise? Royalbroil 12:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added it anyhow to the 4th group. Royalbroil 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Plague of 1518 edit

Pulled from Queue 3 after a commenter on the WT:DYK page noted that the article not only does not make this claim but in fact refutes this very point. - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hansteen (jurist) (history) edit

Created by Punkmorten (talk). Self nom at 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   A decent replacement, although I bet not too many people heard of either of them. Royalbroil 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loyd Wright edit

Prominent Hollywood divorce attorney. I've suggested this as a normal nomination, but how about:

I like this one. Is there a basis in the pay sources, or elsewhere, to say that he was a family law specialist? And if I may suggest slightly crispier wording, how about
No, that is technically inaccurate. How about commenting on his Senate race:
Just would like to point out that this is also on the normal DYK page and have been verified there.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the first one the best... but maybe use "building houses" instead of homes.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Date, length, NY Times pay reference assumed in good faith. I prefer the original hook as well. Royalbroil 04:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this one would probably be better off in the normal DYK. while it is kind of funny, it misses the real "caught you" funnyness needed for april fools day. If the guys name was Frankd Loyd Wright instead of Loyd Wright i would probably feel differently.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree. The wrong spelling gives it away too easily. Royalbroil 12:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put a more conventional hook, dealing with the specific people who Wright represented (Pickford, Wyman) on the regular DYK page, and asked that it be put on hold pending this. If it is not used here on April 1, it will no doubt be used there in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in Puritan New England edit

That is my alternative nomination to the above one. It is also fairly new. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added ", as", a space after the ellipsis, and a question mark. If not ", as", it would still need something after "banned" to avoid being a run-on sentence. Remember, a "run-on sentence" is not the same as a sentence that runs on and on! Art LaPella (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •    Date, length, hook assumed in good faith (it's very believable). However, I don't find it funny at all! It seems like a better hook for Christmas 2009! Royalbroil 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the hook is not funny, but perhaps we could come up with a good one:
I like them all. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the ALT3 best. Short and sweet.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   I also like ALT3 the best - it's interesting! Verified length, date, and the hook is assume in good faith. Royalbroil 03:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of these April Foolsy?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; no surprise element here. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have to drop the "Puritan" tag in order to make the hook look suprising. Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Roberts edit

An attempt on the play of the name of the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (John G. Roberts)

-- article by User:Americasroof, nom by Spikebrennan (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   date good, reference checks, BARELY meets length minimum. Royalbroil 23:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It reads horribly, though, it would be better to say "... that years before President Obama was inaugurated (or "years before President Obama's inauguration), John Roberts bankrolled the Woodstock Festival?" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not like either hook. First, by linking Roberts with Obama, it does nothing except raise red flags. I mean, Obama had nothing to do with Roberts appointment. Thus, if we keep the above hooks, they should be changed to George Bush (the person who nominated him) or William Rehnquist (the person he replaced) instead of Obama. I know there are no real ties to either of them and THIS John Roberts, but at least with Bush/Rehnquist there is a a connection that we can play off of. But even then, I don't like it because anybody who knows who John Roberts is will know that he is too young to be involved with Woodstock. How about:
  • It needs the word "Woodstock" - these hooks aren't funny at all. So what if Roberts financed SOME American festival, the key is that he financed THE festival - Woodstock. Royalbroil 01:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be moved to the "only if needed section" due to its length?--Found5dollar (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turritopsis nutricula edit

Created/expanded by group effort - no credit). Nominated by TomasBat (talk) at 22:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •   date, length, 5x expansion verified. Taken from 2008 nominations. I reviewed the article's history, and I think that no one should get DYK credit as this was a group effort. Royalbroil 13:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is this an AFD hook? - --Boston (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DYK hook appears to be obviously false, when in fact it is true. Royalbroil 00:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we read something in the DYK section, we assume it's true don't we? "Obviously false" is something I can't agree with. I correctly assumed upon reading the hook that the jellyfish has colonial immortality -- something of which there are numerous examples of in nature. I still consider this a non-AFDay hook, but there is no law that says only AFDay hooks have to be posted on April 1st. --Boston (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, the obviously false would be interpretted as "ooops, there was a mistake, I better report it to get it fixed." Therein lies the April Fools. It is telling the truth, but somebody might fall for hte "obvious false" information and act upon their mistake. Therein I think this is a gem of an AFD.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for expressing my thoughts, I'm Spartacus! Royalbroil 00:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not laughing, I'm with Boston on this one. Anyone with just a basic understanding of zoology will realise that this is simply a lie of omission. Lampman (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, apparently this is common. I think that only people with a very strong scientific background could see through the joke, I know that I have a strong scientific background and I was fooled. Royalbroil 01:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common or not, it would be suprising to most readers and therefore I think it is a good hook. Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason "King" Kendall edit

Created/expanded by Boston (talk). Self nom at 05:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dotn realy feel this is very funny. Plus isnt it to short?--Found5dollar (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it funny either, and I made a comment on Boston's talk page about these 2 noms. I count 1611 characters, which exceeds the 1500 character minimum. Royalbroil 11:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...maybe it could be rewritten, or we drop it, no big deal. What's so funny or April Foolish about the immortal jellyfish? --Boston (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Non-eligible Candidates edit

Boston Molasses Disaster edit

It was created in 2001, so it's out of the running. I don't think it would qualify for fivefold expansion either. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 03:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bears in heraldry edit

If only expanded x5 or more, it might be a reasonable candidate. Btw, are we allowed to use the word penis on Main Page? If not, we could replace it with phalluses or something similar. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it needs to either have a 5x expansion after April 1 of the previous year or to have been created since that date, so the article is eligible for the 2009 AFMP DYK if it is not a stub. I don't know if there's a precedent about what word to use for the penis. Very interesting hook! Royalbroil 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hook actually applies to many animals in heraldry, not just bears and not just in Switzerland. This particular article, while "new", is mostly taken from Bear at the moment. Gimmetrow 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Oh, splits copied from existing text aren't eligible except if they have 5x expansion. I bet that's why BorgQueen mentioned 5x expansion. Royalbroil 05:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we used "penis" in the on 21 January 2008 DYK hook: "Did you know that Poli's Stellate Barnacle is hermaphroditic and has a penis significantly longer than its body? - --Boston (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blame It on the Boogie edit

... that two versions of Blame It on the Boogie were released in 1978, one by The Jacksons and another by Michael Jackson? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think either Blame It on the Boogie or Mick Jackson (singer) could be used and expanded 5x. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Article was not new or expanded five-fold between April 1, 2008 and April 1, 2009. It needs cleanup, as the bullet list to be written as prose. Royalbroil 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Figawi edit

  • ... that the term Figawi comes from the drunken slur of "Where the f--- are we?"

Could work and it is a sort of local legend on the Cape. Although the outright swearing will likely disqualify it.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Article was not new or expanded five-fold between April 1, 2008 and April 1, 2009. Royalbroil 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan & Dave edit

"... that Dan & Dave both won Olympic medals, but lost their endorsement deal?" - Spikebrennan (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   I don't think it's funny, but I do think it's excellent for the normal DYK. I'll move the nom there. Royalbroil 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Article is not eligible because it ran on March 15, 2009. Royalbroil 02:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush (NASCAR) edit

"... that George Bush competed in five NASCAR events, finishing among the top 10 three times?" - Spikebrennan (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   I started that tiny article. It's far from 1500 characters. I couldn't find any more content despite knowing where to look. There's no way it could be expanded that far. Royalbroil 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would certainly be a very funny inclusion if expanded! --Boston (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico (town), New York edit

... that 1.34% of Mexico's territory lies under Lake Ontario? Spikebrennan (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Existed on April 1, 2008 and has not been expanded 5x since that date. Royalbroil 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ternary Golay code edit

  • ... that the Ternary Golay code was invented to do Finnish football pools? (I almost deleted this as vandalism, but it seems to check out.) r.e.b. (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Unreferenced, needs significant expansion to meet the 5x expansion requirement. Royalbroil 02:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penn family edit

  • Been working on the Penn family some. This could be an odd or funny hook—these are all different guys. If no one writes up the first John Penn before next April Fool's, I'll do it.
At one point I suggested linking a non-article page, such a disambiguation page. This would be almost the same thing. Gimmetrow 03:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Tzu (mathematician) edit

  • The article Sun Tzu (mathematician) could be expanded fivefold. People would easily mistake it with the famous military strategist Sun Tzu who wrote the book "The Art of War", and henceforth take it as an April Fool's joke.
  Article is far too short, it needs to have at least 1500 characters. Royalbroil 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bombers edit

  • I was looking at the main April 1 article. On that day in 1944 (unless this itself is an April Fool joke), some bombers got lost and bombed the wrong city. Oops. Ha ha. Okay, not really funny, but might be appropriate if we made an article out of it.Matchups 01:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently it was a common problem in those days without GPS. See Bombings of Switzerland in World War II for other examples, which includes the one on April 1st. And this is just within Switzerland, which meant bombing not only the wrong city but the wrong country! --Itub (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, this would be more appropriate in the "On This Day" section. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis E. Dec edit

5x expanded by The Little Blue Frog (talk). Self nom at 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Maybe it'll be good enough for April 1st, because it is only 2.5x expansion between April 18, 2008 (10569) and now (26160). The original was a mess that barely escaped deletion a few months ago for lack of consensus: this one has been extensively rewritten and sourced, so there's expansion in quality as well as quantity, on a topic where sources are hard to come by. (You've heard that a zillion times, right?) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've heard it often enough to have written F2, although lately some have been arguing the point anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I guess a dozen hooks is only fitting for the Ed Wood of paranoid rants.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like ALT #8 in the typewriter typeface. It is the essence of Dec! --Boston (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  　It doesn't matter, the article is only a 2x expansion, and at no point in the past year has it come close to 5x. As Art pointed out above, we don't measure "quality" expansion; as far as I know, the only instances where we have done anything like that waas in the cases of articles that were formerly copyvio and have been rewritten. This article actually had sources for most of it last year. Sorry, but we can't put it on the main page through DYK. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muggletonianism edit

  • This is the article which I would most like to see featured on April Fool's. It is a real religion dating back 300 years but with the right sort of hook can be made to seem like some bored Harry Potter fans' creation. The greatest problem I see is that the article needs a lot of copy-editing, and material on Muggletonianism seems hard to find, but I think it could be done. Sorry I can't think of a good hook. I tried promoting othis on the main April Fool's Page but it doesnt seem that a lot of people watch that page. Please let me know if this can be used. —  Nominated by Soap (talk) at 14:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best I can do off the bat is a nod to Top Gear - "... that Clarkson, a former ranter, is a Muggletonian?" but I don't think the creation date allows the article to qualify. Ben MacDui 18:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Date and length verified. A minimum of 5x expansion over the past year is all that is needed. However, the thought of using a religion's name for April Fool's joke is probably not appropriate except if done in the right way. Royalbroil 01:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider edit

Inspired by a post on Talk:Main Page Modest Genius talk 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Article was split from the previous article according to its edit summary. Splits are normally not eligible, but a case could be made if it was expanded five-fold. It was split at 5202 characters by my count, so it would need to have at least 26,010 characters. Right now it has 18834, so it needs major expansion. Royalbroil 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...yet. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's reached 40kB now Modest Genius talk 01:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved due to expansion. Though given what happened to the thing, this may be less humourous than it might have been (no full energy collisions ocurred before it broke) Modest Genius talk 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I removed the strike from my previous comment as it still applies. I count exactly 19163 characters of main body text right now when I use this text counter (exact number might vary by a little). You do not count the characters in the references section - just the number of printable characters in the main body text. Please read Wikipedia:Did you know/Article length. Royalbroil 03:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, sorry. Nom withdrawn Modest Genius talk 16:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, it'll be back in September. Thus, saying that the LHC hasn't destroyed the world is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. :D –Juliancolton | Talk 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative queues edit

Please do not edit approved hooks directly (except obvious typos). Instead, I'd appreciate comments below in the comments section. Feel free to finish out the remaining queue (s) as needed. You can shuffle between the queues for better balance. Royalbroil 14:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

From Wikipedia's newest articles:


Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article
Queue 2

From Wikipedia's newest articles:


Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article
Queue 3

From Wikipedia's newest articles:

 


Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article
Queue 4

From Wikipedia's newest articles:

 


Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article

Comments edit

  • Good point, I moved it to queue 4. Royalbroil 15:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we remove the italics around "Captain Cook" so as to conceal that it was a ship? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed it - I must have missed that one - I had removed several other italics. Royalbroil 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, the image of TIV Resolution (nom'd above) would be much better than the toenail clippings image. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem like that hook will be used now. In any case, while a reasonably good picture, it doesn't strike me as particularly funny. Not to step on anyone's toes or anything... Lampman (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the article as a regular DYK too. If it don't get used here it will get an airing there. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was marginally funny - more interesting than funny. Royalbroil 01:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queue 1 "New England" still has the inaccurate and pointy "Roman Empire" pipe for "Byzantine Empire". This would not be accepted at normal DYK, & does nothing to improve the joke. There just was nothing called in English the "Roman Empire" in the 1070s, though there was the different Holy Roman Empire. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was discussed already. It's not inaccurate. See the comments made on the thread. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed see those comments. It is not accurate, and the Roman Empire is nowhere mentioned in the article. Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating the assertion (shown already to be misplaced) does not make it so. The situation is explained in the Byzantine Empire article. I don't honestly see the remotish problem here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that is remarkably, well, strange of you. All sorts of states are continuations of other states but we use the appropriate usual name for the period, which is certainly not Roman Empire for 1170 odd. To attempt to pretend otherwise is simply disingenuous. In any case, since the article nowhere mentions the Roman Empire, the hook fails the DYK rules at the first hurdle. You have not "shown" anything, you have just asserted, against all the naming of our articles & categories, what is clearly untrue in English. I can't for the life of me see why you think it improves the hook either. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, this is just repetitious noise. It's an April fools hook employing surprising [but accurate!] usage for fun. Lighten up! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the Byzantine Empire article (which is an FA, by the way) says "known to its inhabitants as the Roman Empire". I don't see the problem here. Lampman (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In queue 4, the "that it took two German submarines, UB-6 and UB-16, to dispatch two World War I Royal Navy recruits?" hook doesn't contain a link to either ship named Recruit. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both ships are redlinks; a link to the set index (aka dab) page HMS Recruit (formatted as [[HMS Recruit|recruits]]) would certainly make the joke a bit easier to discover. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In queue 2, I thought that "(ALT2)... that a 1631 Bible commanded readers to commit adultery?" was the approved wording of the hook. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked that one much better too. Lampman (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefered the other hook, but I changed it (since it was my suggestion). Royalbroil 01:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In queue 3, I propose the following re-wording: "... that the HBO television network broadcast midgets racing for prizes in a chili bowl?" Spikebrennan (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • in queue 4, check with "In the News" before using the "two Turkish missiles" hook-- I like the version here better, but we don't want the sections to step on each other's toes. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to see it on ITN if they can accommodate. Royalbroil 01:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can switch it out with one form the "Only if Needed" section. That section was created just for cases like this. I suggest "Dancing Plague of 1518" since it was just recently pulled out of the queue.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Royalbroil switched it out with another hook. Shubinator (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In queue 4, for the "Phil Lynott" (song) hook, are we missing an article (like an a or the) in front of "lunar ecliptic children's fairy tale"? It doesn't read right to me (unless that's part of the joke(?). — Bellhalla (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added "a". But it's the future queue 4, not the protected Template:Did you know/Queue/4, so I would think anyone could make such a simple, uncontroversial change. More details here Art LaPella (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I knew it wasn't protected; I didn't want to slip something like that in and (potentially) ruin the joke or something like that, which is why the mention here. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we change the strange choice of verb tense for the Bob Backus hook to "wore ballet slippers…" instead of "would wear ballet slippers…"? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, WP:ERRORS has gotten a big boost of activity (not from DYK though...apparently readers look at ITN before DYK). Shubinator (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:April_Fools%27_Main_Page/Did_You_Know/Archive_2009&oldid=1189651167"