Misplaced Pages

:April Fools' Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2012: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:April Fools' Main Page | Did You Know Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:06, 18 March 2012 editMandarax (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers388,294 editsm →Ships lost in San Francisco: Yet more typo fixes: Phillip → Philip (x 3)← Previous edit Revision as of 10:07, 18 March 2012 edit undoBen MacDui (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,249 edits →John Rainwater: further amusementNext edit →
Line 321: Line 321:
::::::<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 21:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC) ::::::<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 21:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::A person who does not exist cannot submit work that is not his own. Until you admit the essentially fictitional nature of anything this wholly fictitious person is said to have done, your hooks cannot even begin to meet the DYK rules for fiction. ] (]) 23:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC) ::::::::A person who does not exist cannot submit work that is not his own. Until you admit the essentially fictitional nature of anything this wholly fictitious person is said to have done, your hooks cannot even begin to meet the DYK rules for fiction. ] (]) 23:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::The only issue I have with this is the use of the word "career", which is stretching it a bit. "has spent five decades at" would work for me. I see no reason to assume our readers are children who cannot be expected to distinguish between an amusing form of pseudonymous work and fiction as such. On a similar theme, if "a person who does not exist cannot submit work that is not his own", then all user contributions may be "essentially fictitional" (sp). Perhaps we need an April 1st RfC on this? ] ]] 10:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


====Peter Orno==== ====Peter Orno====

Revision as of 10:07, 18 March 2012

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 2012

Areas of work needed to complete the front page are:

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

Rules

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

  • DYK articles, for the April Fools DYK, are allowed to be taken from the year prior to April Fool's Day, as long as they have not previously been featured on DYK. The normal "5 day" rule for expansion and nominating is not followed. The article must be created between last April 1st and next March 31st, or have been expanded five times the size it was last April 1st by next March 31st. This exception started in 2006 and has been utilized since.
  • Proper capitalization, title formatting, and linking standards, may be disregarded only if doing this will give away the joke. This should be done as little as possible. (example from 2009: "... that Caviar, Chardonnay, and Hot Cocoa compete for the love of Ray J? ")

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

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

How to review a nomination

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the 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
{{subst:DYKtick}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}} Query DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible

Please consider using {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page, in case they do not notice that there is an issue.

Nominations

Awaiting verification

Peter pepper

  • ... that under certain light conditions penises could be grown in a pot?

5x expanded by Mbz1 (talk)and Qrsdogg (talk) at 03:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  • This hook is stunning and length and date! sadly, the article does not say "under certain lighting conditions" and the ref for being about to be grown in a pot does not actually say that they can be grown in pots. either fix the refs/ language in the article or choose another hook... i wouldn't want to pass this article by come April 1st.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I found the source regarding your question and added it to the article.

I don't like that one... but you're thought has sooooo many other possibilities:

And I think I like Alt4 the best!---Balloonman 03:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

All of these are simply untrue: being in some opinion a miniature replica of something does not establish a synonym status. Kevin McE (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Funzie Girt dyke

Created by Ben MacDui (talk). Self nom at 16:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The reference for the length is the Ordnance Survey map cited at the end of the first para of the Geography section. I just changed the link to avoid an intermediate page, but its probably easier to access from the co-ords at the top of the page. Bing and MSN maps don't seem to be detailed enough. The main part of the remaining wall is "2000 yards" long per the "Certificate of Service of Notice" (citation 21) and a glance at the map shows that the total length would once have been about double that. I don't have a citation that specifically states that it has not moved, although it is pretty clear that it hasn't from the Canmore citation, which provides a picture, notes its make up of "heavy local stones", and that "a considerable degree of antiquity is suggested by its character." There has been frustratingly little modern archaeological work done on the site, which would surely provide a clearer date at least, but hopefully that covers it. Ben MacDui 15:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Current proposal Alt4: " ...that the dance steps to its muckle reel are lost, and Funzie Girt hasn't moved since running 2.5 miles?"
Other options:
  • "hardly" alludes to the removal of stones at the south end. The implication of continued movement may add to the amusement factor. Ben MacDui 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Call me daft, but I don't get how this is an April Fools DYK? What's the catch?---Balloonman 15:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Call me obscurantist, but for me the amusement factor is in the absurdity of the name (I am not entirely alone in this), which sounds vaguely like the name of a cartoon character, and the idea that someone or something "ran" a fair distance long ago but is now immobile. Its not my best, but I think it passes muster. Suggestions very welcome of course. Ben MacDui 08:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It might work if you got rid of the Stone Age. Once I see that, it makes me thinkg "Fault line/Wall/rockslide/stream?"
Alt2 ...that Funzie Girt once easily ran for over 2½ miles but hasn't moved since?
Alt3 ...that Funzie Girt hasn't moved since running 2.5 miles?
Or something along those lines? When I see Stone Age, I'm expecting to see something historical with a weird name.---Balloonman 16:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Alt2 is fine by me. I have been trying to come up with something about the dance steps, but it's not quite falling into place. Something like:
Alt4 " ...that the dance steps to its muckle reel are lost, and Funzie Girt hasn't moved since running 2.5 miles?" ? - which lures the reader in a little. Ben MacDui 13:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Something along those lines works better for me as well, I think my main complaint about 1 and 2 is that it mentions the Stone Age, which immediately tells me that it is something old and run either means run as in a stretch of road or run as in a piece of a river. Not run as in what you do when you wear Nikes.---Balloonman 17:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
If I am interpreting you correctly we are both happy with what I have now called "Alt4" above. Ben MacDui 18:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deliberately misleading: "run" in the sense of "extend" is a false contradiction to movement. Kevin McE (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Quite understandably, given the length of this thread, you are critiquing an earlier version. I will make the current proposal more obvious. However, I am not sure I understand the point - aren't they all intentionally misleading to some degree? If I suggested something that avoided any ambiguity it's not clear how this would qualify unless it relied on the marginal humour of the name itself. Ben MacDui 13:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
No I'm not: I'm critiquing the appearance in every single proposal of phrasing that seeks to contrast "running 2 1/2 miles" with being still. If they are intentionally misleading, they should not be anywhere near an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

With the all due respect, I think you have misunderstood the nature of this page. Here are a few examples of main page DYK's from April 1st last year:

  • ... that Rudyard Kipling's final resting place is at the bottom of the sea off the coast of Ireland?
  • ... that a species of crab, Tumidotheres maculatus, has been found living on an asteroid?
  • ... that St. Joseph has been in Egypt since 1852?
Needless to say they do not link to the English writer, an asteroid in space or a living saint. Clearly it would have been possible to phrase them in a way that was not "misleading" - but then nor would they have been in any way humorous. Ben MacDui 20:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
With equal respect, I think you have misunderstood the level of support for maintaining exactly the same standards on April 1 that are expected any other day, and the lack of appetite for the sort of thing that has passed in previous years. See discussion at WT:MP. Note also the instruction at the top of this page. "... Proper capitalization, title formatting, and linking standards, may be disregarded only if doing this will give away the joke. This should be done as little as possible. (example from 2009: "... that Caviar, Chardonnay, and Hot Cocoa compete for the love of Ray J? ") All other Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines still apply. ", which does not rely on the consensus lacking in the other discussion. The abandonment of normal standards in this proposal has nothing to do with capitalisation, title formatting or linking standards: it relies on a totally different meaning of the word "running" than that which makes sense in the article, and thus is deliberately misleading. Kevin McE (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't you think it would have been polite for someone to notify watchers of this page that an extensive discussion was going on there? Happily this page has been relatively free of input from people with a sense of humour by-pass in the past, but I suppose all good things come to end. Ben MacDui 08:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Verified hooks

Ships lost in San Francisco

Created by Mbz1 (talk) and Qrsdogg (talk) . Self nom at 17:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like any of the above proposals, they are all playing off on the notion that we are juxtaposing locations... but that isn't really funny or unexpected, it's almost cliche now. I do, however, think there are several possible ideas that might work:

  • Alt3 ... that The Reporter had no idea she was digging her own grave as she approached King Philip in San Francisco?
  • Alt4 ... that after approaching King Philip, The Reporter was unceremoniously buried at sea?
  • Alt5 ... that unknowingly The Reporter followed the same path that led to King Philip's demise?

I think these work better because people will wonder who the Reporter was that getting too close to the King.---Balloonman 19:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Names of ships are meant to be in italics. Kevin McE (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


Super Hornio Brothers

( )

Created/expanded by 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk). Self nom at 09:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)





Leonardo Gigli

  • ... that people have cut off arms and legs because of Gigli?

Created by Gilo1969 (talk). Nominated by OCNative (talk) at 10:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Length, and date check out for the original hook, which is hilarious, but the ref does not state that Gili's saw is used for amputations. Fix that and this will be good to go.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
good to go.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)



The Virgin Mary (book)

Created by CaliforniaAliBaba (talk). Nominated by OCNative (talk) at 11:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Length and date are fine, and ALT3 - 5 all check out. ALT1 and 2 are quite boring, in my opinion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Book titles should be italicised. The author of a book does not father it. Kevin McE (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Anal people

Created by Crisco 1492 (talk). Self nom at 11:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed: Jacques Seligmann & Company (diff) Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh please, please, save this for April Fools. Is there any chance that we can get this to fixed up to featured status? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Not for this year, but there is a bit more information in the sources that I did not use (funeral customs and whatnot). Non-Indian sources on the Anal are hard to find. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, now that I've had a chance to look at things. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's appropriate for Misplaced Pages to make juvenile puns on the name of a people. Ucucha 13:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • For April Fools, we have had stuff like Batman (a province) being half female and whatnot. Most of the April Fools hooks play on puns. With the proper capitalization (i.e. the original hook), we could make a sound argument that we did not mean anything related to the anus. (Side note: anybody want to expand Anus language?) Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Past errors are no excuse to repeat them, and I think puns on "anal" are more offensive than those on "Batman" (which seem mainly silly). The name of a people is a major part of that people's heritage, and joking about it on the front page of what should be a serious encyclopedia is inappropriate. Ucucha 00:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, almost any hook we write will wind up being read as a pun. For example:
ALT2: ... that Anal people wear baskets around their waists every day?
ALT3: ... that the Anal have their own language?
ALT4: ... that the Anal refer to themselves as the Pakan?
ALT5: ... that Anal people may have to pay a fine when divorcing?
ALT6: ... that the Anal are not vegetarians?
That's just the way the human mind works, methinks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm in agreement that it's a bit offensive, but also in agreement that this would be perfect to save for April Fools. --Elonka 02:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Just because the Anal people have pun potential shouldn't exclude them from DYK eligibility. --MTHarden (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems there is a concensus that this would be good for April Fools, but without a review this cannot be moved to the dedicated page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Article length and dates are OK. Hook lengths are OK. Sourcing is OK for hooks ALT4, ALT5, and ALT6. ALT2 is only partially supported; the Misplaced Pages article does not explicitly state that baskets are worn "around the waist" nor that they are worn "every day." The original hook and ALT3 are not supported by inline citations in the article. In spite of the humor value of the name "Anal," however, I'm not particularly impressed by any of the hooks (except for ALT2, which is not adequately supported by the article). I'd like to suggest some additional alternatives:
  • ALT7: ... that, according to legend, Mongolia was the origin of Anal people?
  • ALT8: ... that Anal people wear earrings made from the wings of insects?
Additionally, the structure of several passages in the article may be a bit too close to the structure of sections in the sources, although wording is changed. If this is saved for April Fool's Day 2012, there will be plenty of time to polish it to remove semi-close paraphrasing. --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
A couple more ALTs.
  • ALT9: ... that anal people wear earrings made from the wings of insects?
  • ALT10: ... that the Anal wear earrings made from the wings of insects?
  • ALT11: ... that the anal wear earrings made from the wings of insects?
To find the hookiest phrasing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the insect wings one, it kind of gives away the fact thta we are not talking about anal people in the sense of anal retentive people, but rather an indigenous population. How about:

Nun (pigeon)

  • ... that Nuns can fly at high altitudes?

5x expanded by Miyagawa (talk). Self nom at 11:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If it does get passed, I think that the first hook would be pretty good for next years April Fools Day! The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Good to go! I like the idea of the April Fools Day thing. Doh5678 Talk 12:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Happy for it to be put aside for next year's April Fools DYKs. :) Miyagawa (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I've copied and pasted this from the main DYK page to here after the author gave consent for it to be put on April Fool day. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Bravo! I love the first hook. Royalbroil 12:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I hafta throw this out, there was an old TV series that featured a Flying Nun. Alt3 ...that flying Nuns exist.---Balloonman 17:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

John Rainwater

  • ... that mathematician John Rainwater has had a five-decade career at the University of Washington—even after having committed plagiarism and after having left a professor an explosive booby-trap?
  • Comment: John Rainwater is the pseudonym of a mathematician, in whose name other mathematicians publish papers. Students submitted Rainwater's homework for a course (plagiarism); an exploding fountain-pen with Rainwater's name on it was left for the professor to find (explosive booby-trap). (If this is approved, then kindly remove it from the current DYK nomination (2 April), to avoid duplication.)

Created by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk). Self nom at 08:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Date, length, facts taken in good faith from offline source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalbroil (talk • contribs) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I have now quoted the paragraph in a footnote, to simplify verification. I also improved the link to the journal. Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Did you use any of the other references for this content? None were cited inline just in the references section in the bottom. Sorry I made an oops with my signature; I did verify it for 2012. Royalbroil 02:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The exploding pen and homework pranks are only in Phelps, although information is passed on as an oral tradition in meetings in Paseky, Kent, Columbus, Seattle, etc. I have explained Phelp's notability and reliability elsewhere. Rainwater's notability is established by Rainwater's theorem, which is discussed in Diestel's books, for starters. You can iterate the bibliography operator on the references for Robert Phelps, and find a lot more references to the Rainwater seminar, etc. BTW "the enigmatic John Rainwater" appears on page 147 in Diestel, sequences and series in BS, where he discusses Rainwater's theorem. I'm tired and must sleep: Iterating the bibliography operator is a mathematics joke from Halmos, btw.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK hooks on fictional works are meant to deal with a real world fact. Kevin McE (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin!
While fictitious, John Rainwater is not a fictional character, like the mathematician Professor Moriarty who bedevils Sherlock Holmes. The pen and fake homework-submissions occurred in the real world (a University of Washington mathematical course on real functions, e.g. using Halmos's Measure theory). The Rainwater seminar has been held and the Rainwater lecture-notes circulate in the real world, for decades. Rainwater's publications occur in the real world.
Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The claim is fictitious. He has not had a 50 year career as a professor. DYK hooks must be true: we cannot ask our readers whether they know something that cannot be known to be a fact, as it is not one. Kevin McE (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
You misread the claim, which does not state that he was a professor. While interesting, your original research doesn't hold a candle to the highest quality most reliable source, that is Professor Phelps's biography of Rainwater, which does have a lot of statements about Rainwater.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I admit the 50 years as prof was a misreading: the essential fact, that this is not a person who has had a 50 year career, stands. There is not a mathematician called John Rainwater (or if, by some strange co-incidence, there is, he is not the subject of this article). That he was invented by students is an admission that the character is not real. As such, any claim made about his career is not real. Biographical writing about characters that are fictitious/fictional (the distinction is irrelevant for these purposes) abound: libraries and bookshops are full of books that do that. We do not report them as facts in an encyclopaedia. The claim about self-confessed plagiarism (even apart from the fact that a fictitious character cannot admit anything) is absent from the article. Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
As usually defined in academic honesty guidelines, academic "plagiarism" includes the offense of submitting work that is not the student's, including especially other students' work. Other students submitted homework on behalf of John Rainwater, as the article states. QED. If other editors are afraid of OR by synthesis, I can adjust the hook.
Kevin, you should stop reasoning about what is and is not real before you hurt yourself: "any claim made about his career is not real" would be news to Professor Phelps.
There is no claim about "self-confessed" anything.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
A person who does not exist cannot submit work that is not his own. Until you admit the essentially fictitional nature of anything this wholly fictitious person is said to have done, your hooks cannot even begin to meet the DYK rules for fiction. Kevin McE (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The only issue I have with this is the use of the word "career", which is stretching it a bit. "has spent five decades at" would work for me. I see no reason to assume our readers are children who cannot be expected to distinguish between an amusing form of pseudonymous work and fiction as such. On a similar theme, if "a person who does not exist cannot submit work that is not his own", then all user contributions may be "essentially fictitional" (sp). Perhaps we need an April 1st RfC on this? Ben MacDui 10:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Orno

  • ... that Ohio State University mathematician Peter Orno (abbreviated "P. ORNO") is a pseudonym inspired by erotic publications?

Created by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk). Self nom at 13:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: User:EdJohnston suggested the suitability of this item for April Fools' Day. Please note that the article on another pseudnymous mathematicianJohn Rainwater has already been approved, so (if approved) this item's placement would require coordination with Rainwater's. There is extensive discussion of notability, etc., on the current DYK page. Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed the nomination from the main DYK suggestion page, and hereafter begins its discussion:  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm--nice article, but I have some problems. First of all, the sourcing pretty much depends on two sentences in this, and a mention of unpublished results in a nonline "Not available online" source. Second, it is rather short--less than 1,500 characters, not taking into account the "publications" section. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The obvious observation that "P. Orno" suggests "Porno=pornography" was made by Robert R. Phelps in the scholarly publication you kindly linked. Shouldn't that suffice?
I appreciate your spelling out "nonline". All of the sources are available on line, now with page links to the mention of Peter Orno. (They were on-line before, of course.)
The article is now nearly 3000 characters long, according to the DYK counter, double the needed length. I paraphrased the statement of Orno's most famous papers, using the synopsis from Mathematical Reviews, which is cited for each article.
I trust that these improvements satisfy your initial concerns, at least.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I never criticized the hook--my comments were to suggest that a "BLP" (for a fictional character/pseudonym) needs more than two sentences in an article about another "person". The text (without the "selected bibliography"--such sections are usually not counted, though the summaries may count) is a little over 1,500 characters now. But I am still not convinced that such relatively thin sourcing (a total of four sentences, without the Tomczak-Jaegermann mention, which I can't verify) is enough for a DYK article, and I will call in some second opinions. Other editors, in the meantime, are invited to weigh in, and if I'm too critical I gladly stand corrected. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
My question is that, if he is a fictitious mathematician, then why are we worrying about BLP concerns? –MuZemike 00:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry MuZemike, maybe I didn't make myself clear: I don't have a BLP concern--my concern is with the paucity of sources in the first place, considering this is DYK article, which should represent some of the good stuff Misplaced Pages has to offer. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You must not have looked at the article again before you wrote that sentence. Look again. The article is better sourced than the article on Henry Mann, etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I had literally a one-minute look at this. Two concerns: (i) notability - only 4 articles published over the period covered by Web of Science, that is roughly 50 years. (ii) I see no evidence that Peter Orno was a pseudonym in all those articles - obviously, some real names are much more unusual. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding notability reliable sources: JSTOR lists roughly 20 contributions (Mathematics Magazine, as noted and linked in the article): These are accessible at the public library of many cities, for example.
Please keep perspective: I can add a lot of references from books, e.g. Meyer-Nieberg's book on Banach Lattices is handy. But this is waste of everybody's time. I've written enough articles on WP of sufficient quality and Phelps is sufficiently reputable (and Canadian Universities sufficiently risk-averse about slander), that it's certainly a waste of my time!
You seem to worry that Peter Orno has emerged (like Professor Moriarity on Star Trek: The Next Generation or Jeff Daniel's character in the Purple Rose of Cairo) into reality. If some mathematician named their kid Peter Orno, then the murder of one parent would have been reported by now, well before the incarnated Peter Orno would have diabolically been hired at Ohio State and published his first solution of a problem in the Mathematics Magazine! Check OSU to see whether Peter Orno is listed in the math dept.!
In time---perhaps not in our time, and maybe not in the time of our children, but certainly in the time of our childrens' children---the principal mathematicians publishing as Peter Orno will be revealed, and then this article can be folded into the main article (because I guess that B---whoops---that the author of Peter Orno is only one mathematician, unlike the 10+ mathematicians behind John Rainwater).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

<indent> No slight, but my concerns remain - (i) most of those publications are of low notability; to understand the point, this page doesn't even list his jstor publication, and this is one of the "strong" refs (that is recognized by WoS and assigned a doi number). (ii) I can AGF that Orno from Ohio State University is fictional, but could only confirm the OSU affiliation for two articles (1974 & 1976). Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The 18 individual Mathematics Magazine listings establish overwhelming evidence of an association with Ohio State University. The 18 MM articles are not meant to establish notability: All are reliable sources (02:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)). Each (that I have checked) does establish Orno's affiliation with Ohio State. The AMM article is the latest giving his affiliation as OSU, providing easily verifiable evidence to the reader of the OSU-affiliation stated in the article. All those articles are available on JSTOR. In addition, as I repeatedly stated above, Pietsch states that Orno is a "special creation" of Ohio state University, in his history of functional analysis where he only discusses notable persons---small and medium fry are ignored: Look at Google Books, to which the page reference points, as I have said more than once. Pietsch has been a world leader in functional analysis since 1970 or so. (Similarly, while Tomczak Jaeger is an international hot shot and Singer writes the most comprehensive books on approximation theory and basis-theory in Banach spaces). What more do you want?
I listed three notable articles, for each of which I provided a synopsis, using the highlight of the article summary from mathematical reviews, as noted in the article (in hidden comments) and noted above. As I stated before, it is easy to find additional references for each of them. I added a handful of references to Orno's paper on regular representations of operators on a Banach lattice: If you want more, please check Abramovich and Aliprantis and Burkenshaw, for example. But what is the point? Again, the article is far better sourced than most biographies sailing through DYK?, and long ago it met the criteria for sourcing. It certainly did so at 4 a.m. when Drmies again complained about the "paucity of sources" (sic.).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I added another paper, which has been referenced at least 11 times, according to Google Scholar: This paper solves a problem of Jon Borwein, which is usually considered to be notable achievement---to do so in one page is the kind of elegance mathematicians expect but don't deserve from Peter Orno. 04:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you think P. Orno from OSU would pass WP:PROF? I doubt that, i.e. notability is the key here. Materialscientist (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Like another pseudonymous mathematican, Nicolas Bourbaki, Peter Orno is exempt from that test, because fictitious persons are not covered by the biography project. Please review the discussion on the project's talk-page about John Rainwater and Peter Orno.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
But, just sayin', if biography-notability was relevant, then Peter Orno would easily pass, e.g. by passing the first item: (1) having a significant impact on the field. P. Orno's results are discussed in high-level monographs and featured surveys, which are cited in the article.
Mathematicians don't waste time writing duplicated articles about facts everybody knows. Look at the article on Henry Mann, which uses one reliable source for almost all of its details.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 04:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
But the sourcing on Mann is much more impressive--there's articles dedicated to him alone, as well as a Festschrift. I'm not sure about what other biographies you mean that "sail through" here; I certainly don't let them sail through. I asked for others' opinions precisely because I am not sure, and I still am not sure--and I'm sorry Kiefer, but that's my opinion. Materialscientist's opinion is of great value to me, and I would love to hear more opinions, but as it is, I can't sign off on it. If some other seasoned editor thinks I'm being too fastidious, that's fine: I certainly don't mind being overruled. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Your conscience should over-rule you. You stated a concern about notability and brought up the weakest article by Orno, which only was cited to establish the latest refereed link to OSU. You then ignore the 3-4 articles which are certainly notable and discussed, as well as the numerous references to Orno's papers and mention of Orno in reliable sources. Would you at least admit that your previous points were wrong, and that you are adding new concerns at every turn?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Peter Orno carries on the great tradition of Nicholas Bourbaki, we should consider cutting him some slack. Bourbaki's notability is uncontestable. You could fill a library shelf with the works of Bourbaki that can still be ordered from Amazon. Do we know if Orno is a full professor? He could be a relative of Lieutenant Kijé. A suitable nomination for April 1. I'm looking forward to WP:Notability#Fictitious persons. Since there are so few fictitious mathematicians, we should find the sourceable ones interesting. If there were dozens, we could be more choosey. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ed, perhaps you wouldn't mind looking at and possibly approving this for DYK. I am being accused here of waffling, inventing new concerns, complaining, and the like, in somewhat unfriendly terms--and I reiterate, paucity of sourcing was my gripe from the get-go, my only gripe, but it leads to the question of notability raised more eloquently by Materialscientist--so it's probably best if I leave this one alone. Thanks, and Kiefer, good luck with the article. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The article on John Rainwater was already approved for DYK next April Fool's Day, but it shouldn't be a problem to have this article on Peter Orno appearing in a different queue, I suppose. I wrote these articles in an April-Fools state of mind, inspired by the description of pseudonymous articles by John R. Isbell. (I also wrote a very serious article on Robert Phelps.) With luck, John Rainwater's anonymous-referee's report of a submitted article by Peter Orno may be available as an external resource at a university webpage, by next April.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Drmies, I'm sorry for being irritated. I have recently tried to help with edits on the blurb for a Swedish dance-band singer on the DYK project, etc.~, which hadn't received the level of scrutiny or the level of reliable sources that imho P.O. had.
It is difficult to write about pseudonymous mathematicians until their authors "out themselves", for the same reason that it was difficult to discuss professional wrestling---all the knowledgeable people don't want to give the game away.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Following EdJohnston's suggestion, I nominated this for April Fool's Day, noting the extensive discussion here.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I added this footnote, which is a second source about the pornographic connotation of "P. Orno": "Diestel (1984, p. 259) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFDiestel1984 (help) places Peter Orno in his index under the letter "p" as "P. ORNO", with all-capital letters in Diestel's original."
Thanks. I added a link to Google Books in one Diestel-attributed footnote: Diestel's "An elegant proof of this was uncovered by P. Orno (1976)" is visible at Google Books.
  • Alt2 that Ohio State University P. Orno is a published mathematician?
DYK hooks on fictional works are meant to deal with a real world fact. Kevin McE (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Typically yes, but April Fools Day is a day where the rules are loosened and ignored.---Balloonman 06:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Hook1 deals with a real-world fact. Hook2 has a misspelling and is far less interesting imho.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
To Kiefer: yes, I agree (although I had missed the typo, now corrected); my comment immediately followed ALT2 and was indented as a response to that. However, there is a failing of logic in ALT 1: a pseudonym cannot be a mathematician, it can be used by a mathematician. And it is at that point that we run into a problem of honesty, because only real people can have real life pseudonyms. Kevin McE (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
To Balloonman: At the Main Page discussion, there seems to be no meaningful consensus behind that assertion. Kevin McE (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
You are pontificating a lot, and pontificating with worse logic than most pontiffs, which is already a low standard.
Peter Orno is in fact one mathematician at Ohio State University, whose identify is obvious to any specialist in Banach-space theory. Unless you have been successful removing Mark Twain from Misplaced Pages, I suggest you give this one a rest, because you don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
That claim is directly contradicted by the article: "Peter Orno is the pseudonym of a fictitious mathematician, who appears as the author of short papers by one or more mathematicians." Kevin McE (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Fred (baboon)

  • ... that Fred the baboon was captured and given a lethal injection after assaulting tourists, breaking into their cars and stealing food?

Created by Candlewicke (talk). Self nom at 11:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Everything checks out. However, I've included another possible option....
  • For April Fools' Day: ALT1 ... that a gang leader was executed by lethal injection for the crimes of assaulting tourists and breaking into their cars to steal food? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The article refers to Fred as "the leader of a baboon gang". However, I checked through all of the available sources listed (The Times site seems to be unavailable), and, while some mention that Fred was an "alpha male", I didn't see any that specifically say that he was a gang leader. I don't think that's close enough for hook verification purposes, so, unless other sources emerge, I'd recommend abandoning the April 1 idea and going with the original hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • D'oh! The Times site is now coming through, and it uses the term "troop leader". That's good enough for me. I've added an inline citation immediately after that in the article, and I once again think that an April Fools' hook may be viable. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
My favorite is ALT2. Royalbroil 03:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The original hook doesn't have a joke so it wouldn't be appropriate for April Fools' Day, just a regular DYK. If you removed the mention that Fred is a baboon, that would be different. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've struck the original. I prefer ALT1 because: 1) Using just the name "Fred" could cause suspicion that it might be an animal. 2) We want it to appear that a person committing relatively minor crimes was outrageously and unjustly executed, so we want Fred to appear as innocent as possible. Thus, I think it's better to omit "aggressive" and "multiple" and to include that he broke in to steal food. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-eligible Candidates

United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, Quantity of Books v. Kansas, Marcus v. Search Warrant

United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs was created on March 24, United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film was created on March 26, Quantity of Books v. Kansas was created on March 28, and Marcus v. Search Warrant was created on March 30. The below portions (between the two lines) can be found at Template talk:Did you know#United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, Quantity of Books v. Kansas, Marcus v. Search Warrant

  • Reviewed: Carl Lundgren ()
  • Comment: I had originally put together this group for April Fool's Day (hey, in rem cases are funny!) Since it didn't even get reviewed in time, I just decided to make it a regular submission. I hope it's OK; if it were accepted it would be a personal record for most articles in a single hook

Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self nom at 02:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The April Fools DYK rule states, "DYK articles, for the April Fools DYK, are allowed to be taken from the year prior to April Fool's Day, as long as they have not previously been featured on DYK. The normal "5 day" rule for expansion and nominating is not followed. The article must be created between last April 1st and next March 31st, or have been expanded five times the size it was last April 1st by next March 31st. This exception started in 2006 and has been utilized since." These articles are excruciatingly close to the cut-off date, so can this set be considered for the April Fools DYK, or should they continue to only be considered for regular DYK? OCNative (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories: