Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
On the Main Page
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC

Please use this page for discussions surrounding the creation of "Did You Know" items for April Fools' Day 2023

Areas of work needed to complete the front page are:

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


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

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

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

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

How to review a nomination[edit]

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

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

Symbol Code DYK Ready? Description
Symbol confirmed.svg {{subst:DYKtick}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
Symbol voting keep.svg {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language, offline hook reference, or reference behind a paywall accepted in good faith
Symbol question.svg {{subst:DYK?}} Query DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}
Symbol possible vote.svg {{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}
Symbol delete vote.svg {{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg {{subst:DYK?again}} New review Article issues have been resolved and is ready for a new review.

An article cannot be officially promoted until a reviewer has given approval (Symbol confirmed.svg or Symbol voting keep.svg) to at least one of the article's hooks.


Awaiting verification[edit]

Note: Nominations for April 1 should be added to Template talk:Did you know in the usual way, as well as below.

A drive into deep left field by Castellanos

Moved to mainspace by Bait30 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/A drive into deep left field by Castellanos, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg The blockquote might be somewhat long, and leads to Earwig flagging this article, but I've trimmed it a bit and if it's problematic I can trim it even further. I have slightly altered the hook to make it make some more sense. Do note the request to keep this hook for April 1. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verified hooks[edit]

Edith of Wilton

Edith of Wilton
Edith of Wilton
  • ... that it was said that Edith of Wilton (pictured) "violently" protected her own body long after she had died? Source: Ridyard also reports that not only did Edith protect the convent's properties, she protected, at times violently, "one further possession which was essential to its prestige, its prosperity and even its identity—the body of St Edith herself", source in the article

Improved to Good Article status by Figureskatingfan (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Please wait a bit if intending to review, GA author has special preferences for this. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT1: ... that Edith of Wilton was called "the laziest saint in England"? source in the article
I've switched to ALT1 at Figureskatingfan's request, who would like to have this run for April's Fools. Thank you. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT2: ... that because she did very little work after her death, Edith of Wilton was called "the laziest saint in England"?
Maybe a slightly more agressive one for April's Fools, open to other variants. @Figureskatingfan I just thought that this would also make a good "Halloween" nom with a variant of my original hook (violent ghost nun and stuff), but alas we have no special event for that.LordPickleII (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Green tickY
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg Alt 2 is still catchy, but better than the previous in order to clarify the real facts. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 12:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Just checking in with @Figureskatingfan to ask if that ALT2 hook was okay? And also again, please hold for April 1. –LordPickleII (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone, I like the 2nd hook better too, since it's just ambigious enough. One of the reasons I submitted this article to GAN was so that we could submit it to DYK for the main page on April Fool's Day. The quote from the source, calling St Edith a "lazy" saint was just too good and too funny to not share. I don't care for the violent ghost nun idea because it's too wrapped up in our current sensibilities, whereas while the lazy saint line does fit our sensibilities, it also fits the Middle Ages'. My hook version is a bit more accurate; it wasn't that Edith didn't work hard enough because she did miracles for other people outside Wilton Convent, it was that the nuns there felt that she wasn't doing enough for them, which pissed them off. At any rate, thanks for submitting this to DYK, LordPeterII. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JeBonSer: Can you confirm you did approve this for April's Fools? And now there's an ALT3 suggested, can you check it, too? Although @Figureskatingfan I think ALT3 might really be too "calm" for April's Fools, since it essentially accurate, not slightly misleading (even ALT2 is only barely). I mean, you could actually run ALT3 in a regular queue. We might actually need something a bit more flashy. Compare the April's Fool DYK from last year. –LordPickleII (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm okay for Alt3 and much better. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 21:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JeBonSer, LordPeterII, and Figureskatingfan: In general, our April Fools' Day hooks involve not just humour, but a little bit of misleading – we're observe a prank-themed holiday here at DYK, after all. Because of that, I don't think any of these hooks would quite cut it for AFD, but I think ALTs 1 or 2 would make for fantastic quirky! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 06:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then how about if we combine the original hook and ALT1:
ALT4: ... that Edith of Wilton, who was called "the laziest saint in England" (pictured), "violently" protected her own body long after she had died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talkcontribs) 16:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just thought of ALT5 above; this is how I would imagine an April's Fool hook for the article. @Figureskatingfan would that work for you? It's maximally condensed to leave out most context, leaving readers confused as to why someone would be called lazy after their death. It also doesn't use quotation marks anymore – basically ALT5 can no longer be used in a regular queue, only on April 1. @Theleekycauldron or is it still too tame? :D –LordPickleII (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yah, I'm good with the ALT5, since I have no idea how to write an AFD DYK hook. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII and Figureskatingfan: there might not be a viable AFD hook based on this fact – it's not one that easily lends itself to the AFD flavour. How about this as a normal quirky hook: theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT6: ... that Edith of Wilton was criticized for not working after her death?
@Theleekycauldron: I'm fine with ALT6, although I personally perfer ALT5. I concede to your expertise in this matter, however. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well I do appreciate that ;) the issue with ALT5, I think, is that it would publish a criticism as fact. I personally wouldn't mind, since the criticism is plainly absurd, but not everyone agrees with that assessment, and the difference in hookiness is only slight. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 10:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT5 was only intended as a try for April's Fools Day, otherwise it is a little too distorted imo. I'm sorry that this won't be able to run for April's Fool after all, Figureskatingfan, but I believe ALT6 will still get many views in a regular queue. –LordPeterII (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:, but I have my heart set on getting this on AFD. I'm okay with ALT6 if that'll help it happen. If not, and it's going to be in the normal queue, then I'd like to go back to ALT2. That being said, I still don't understand your reasoning behind rejecting ALT1 or ALT2 for April 1st. I mean, it's funny, it's ambigious, it has the potential for readers to go to the article to check out what it means. It's also potentially educational because it may peak enough attention for readers to want to learn about the process of canonization, both in modern times and during the Middle Ages. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. I've yet to change my mind on April Fools', so I'll throw to Gatoclass for a sanity check. Gatoclass, what do you think about these hooks for AFD? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 03:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I agree that ALTs 1 and 2 do not work as AFD hooks, because they are too explicit and contain no element of deception or surprise. ALT5 I find a bit clunky quite frankly. ALT6 is concise, to the point, and outwardly absurd to the point of disbelief, so in my view makes an ideal AFD hook. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Gatoclass:. I'm good with ALT6 then. Yippee! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've moved the nomination :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! Glad that this worked out in the end.
... but some technical thing: I was just informed by DYKHousekeepingBot that this nomination was "incomplete". I think I've had that happen before, but forgot why; do you know what it means @theleekycauldron? –LordPeterII (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LordPeterII: hmm... shoot a talk page message to Shubinator for me, would ya? Seems like the bot's not recognizing that the nomination is on the AFD page. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Will do. –LordPeterII (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New York City (painting)

New York City I (1941), upside down
New York City I (1941), upside down
additional confusing details: note that both the image and the caption have been transformed. furthermore, the full-sized image appears to be of the painting as displayed (upside down), but it was rotated a week ago to display the painting right-side up, and then reverted back to its original orientation some days later. i was fiddling with the dyk code earlier to see if it was possible to display the thumbnail upside down, and presumably created a cache of the thumbnail when the full-sized image was still displaying the painting in its correct orientation. i do not know how to manually clear the cached thumbnail, but have written the caption as if it has already been cleared.

Created by dying (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC). [updated as cached thumbnail has now been purged. dying (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg @Dying: New and long enough, QPQ done, Earwig finds no copyvios, hook checks out and is interesting. The image inversion is clever, however according to the Commons page, the painting is not in the public domain in the U.S., which I think makes it ineligible for the Main Page. (I wonder if a case could be made that it is actually commons:Template:PD-shape?) FWIW, the image appears right-way-up to me, with the "thicker" grid at the top. The article itself is within policy, but the first sentence is confusing since the name "New York City I" is apparently being applied to both paintings. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 03:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • oh, that's interesting, Antony-22. the not-pd-us-uraa template was added after i had created the article, by Hekerui, a commons administrator, to a photo of a painting different than the one shown in the hook. note that the painting shown in the proposed hook is new york city i (1941), an unfinished painting, as seen on commons here, while the photo tagged with the not-pd-us-uraa template shows new york city (1942), a finished painting, also formerly known as new york city i.
      i actually did a bit of research on this before creating the article, and had believed that both new york city i (1941) and new york city (1942) were in the public domain in the united states, even though not all of mondrian's works are. however, as i am not a copyright lawyer and don't have much experience in the area, i could easily have overlooked something, so it may be better to ask why the photo was tagged rather than subject you to my questionable ramblings on copyright law.
      by the way, i finally figured out how to purge the thumbnail! for future reference, i used the button on this page. the html in the dyk hook appears to use one of three thumbnails, with a width of either 137, 206, or 274 pixels, and only the first was problematic, so you may have seen one of the other two.
      anyway, Hekerui, would you mind explaining to me why the not-pd-us-uraa template applies to new york city (1942)? dying (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, being an admin doesn't mean I have the truth but I have checked the policies. For the US I use the Hirtle chart as guidance. First, the work entered the public domain in the EU in 2015 due to the death of the author in 1944. I saw no evidence on the medium page that the painting is in the public domain in the United States, hence the template. Works (not sound recordings) published 95 years ago automatically qualify but this is not the case because this work is from 1941. Per the nice article it was was first exhibited in 1945 or 1946 in the United States. Was it published with a copyright notice or subsequent registration that was or wasn't renewed? As long as this is not known there is doubt that the work is in the public domain. For clarity one could research whether it had a notice when first exhibited or check the Catalog of Copyright Entries to exclude the possibility of copyright registration/registration renewal. You stated you did research, a good source on the copyright status would be welcome. If research shows no notice (or information on notice) or entry/renewal then due dilligence would have been done in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A reasonable question would be why I have not nominated the medium for deletion: Policy states that US copyright is essential and there is also a precautionary principle. I have actually been preparing a request for comments to clarify this issue because a lot of files on the Commons (much clearer cases than this) are hosted despite lack of evidence of US public domain status. While this is not done I marked the file. Hekerui (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no worries, Hekerui, i don't expect all administrators to always know the truth, though i generally assume that all commons administrators are more experienced with copyright issues than i am, and your response clearly supports that assumption.
the new york times happens to have written an article that focuses on the copyright status of mondrian's works, in which it asserts that the uraa "extends to 95 years copyrights for images 'by foreign artists created and first reproduced and published in another country between 1923 and 1978.'". the article also addresses the specific example of victory boogie woogie, an unfinished painting that, like the unfinished new york city i (1941), mondrian had worked on while he lived in new york city. the article notes that madalena holtzman, trustee of the mondrian/holtzman trust (which deals with the copyrights of mondrian's works), states that victory boogie woogie is not covered by the uraa because it was first reproduced in the united states, so the work is not subject to fees under u.s. copyright laws.
i am not an art historian, so i don't know what would be a definitive source for the history of mondrian's works, but the netherlands institute for art history appears to have a good online database of information regarding the paintings in question. their entries on new york city i (1941), new york city (1942), and victory boogie woogie seem to show that they all have similar histories, so it would be rather unusual if victory boogie woogie was considered public domain in the united states while the other two were not. in addition, hyperallergic, an online art magazine based in new york city, explicitly uses new york city (1942) in its article about public domain day in 2015.
admittedly, i think it would be pretty difficult for me to figure out how to "research whether it had a notice when first exhibited", but i had not even considered looking through the catalog of copyright entries, so i appreciate the suggestion. looking through the online copyright catalog, which includes entries going back to 1978, i was unable to find either new york city i (1941) or new york city (1942), so i am assuming that, if a copyright had ever been registered, it would have expired by now. of course, it is possible that these works had their copyrights renewed and i am simply incompetent at searching the copyright database, but i also found an entry for a "Notice of intent to enforce a copyright restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act" apparently filed in 1996 by or on behalf of elizabeth holtzman, mother of madalena holtzman. the provided list of 822 paintings includes neither new york city i (1941) nor new york city (1942), so i assume that the uraa does not apply to either of them.
is this sufficient due diligence? dying (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good article in the NYT! The conclusion in the article about Uruguay Round Agreements Act is that it US law applies, it is not a non-US works whose copyright was restored. Hyperallergic published the picture either assuming a EU copyright duration expiration applies, which does not make sense for a work from that time and source, or knowing what you found in the copyright database, which is that this work was not included in renewal. I felt free to add a new template on the Commons, linking this discussion on the talk page, because it is sufficient research in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks, Hekerui! Antony-22, are there any further issues to address? note that i have since added "that" and "(shown)" to the hook, which i somehow missed during my initial nomination. dying (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Based on Hekerui's approval of the image copyright status, this is good to go. Again, I recommend using the clever image presentation. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 10:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any chance we could save this for April Fools' Day? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
haha, good idea, theleekycauldron! i'm not in a rush to get this posted, so would be happy to have it featured then. dying (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
excellent, moved! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A drive into deep left field by Castellanos

Moved to mainspace by Bait30 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/A drive into deep left field by Castellanos, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg The blockquote might be somewhat long, and leads to Earwig flagging this article, but I've trimmed it a bit and if it's problematic I can trim it even further. I have slightly altered the hook to make it make some more sense. Do note the request to keep this hook for April 1. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]