Template talk:Did you know

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. To discuss Did You Know please use Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

SKIP TO NOMINATIONS

Main (T:DYK)
Rules (WP:DYK)
Suggestions (T:TDYK)
Queues (T:DYK/Q)
Archives (T:DYK/A)
Discussion (WT:DYK)

Instructions

Did you know? (DYK) entries are interesting facts that not many people may know. On this page possible entries are listed and members of the DYK project assess the nominations for the DYK section. DYKs are listed on the Main Page.

How to enter a DYK

List articles on this page under the Nominations area, below. The newest nominations go at the top. If you would like to make a nomination, you should read the rules below.

If there is a picture that you would like to see used with your nomination, please add it with your nomination as shown below. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion.

Rules

• Only one article can be nominated for a Did You Know hook.
  • This does not mean there can only be one link in the hook. It means the hook is to feature one article.
  • This main article is the link which is in bold. This article must meet the DYK rules.
  • Any other links in the hook are minor links.
• Information presented in any article nominated for DYK should be verifiable and unbiased. There must be a citation of a credible source to support the fact contained in the hook.
  • Articles that are tagged for bias with {{NPOV}} or for lack of accuracy with {{Disputed}} are not suitable for DYK.
  • Articles where facts are questioned with {{fact}} tags may not be suitable.
• The article linked should be easy to read.
  • The article should not be tagged as {{complex}}.
  • It should comply with the guideline on writing Simple English articles.
  • If possible, readability tests, such as this, should indicate a U.S. grade level of no greater than Grade 8 on (most) scores.
  • There should be no red linked categories or red linked templates.
• Articles nominated for DYK should not be too short.
  • Three-sentence stubs are not suitable.
  • The text of the article must be at least 800 characters. The number of characters can be measured with this tool.
• The hook used to encourage people to read the article should be interesting to read. Information mentioned in the hook should be in the article text (not in a footnote, or in a linked reference, or in an infobox).
  • Whether a hook is not interesting should not be a matter for only one reviewer to decide. The first reviewer marks as {{DYKalmost}} if they feel the hook is not sufficiently interesting, with wording like "Is there a more interesting hook?". If 2 assessors (including the initial one) agree that the hook is uninteresting and no alternative has been put forward, the nomination is rejected with {{DYKno}} and advice to the nominator that "2 reviewers feel that this hook is not interesting, please suggest an alternative hook."
  • Articles may be re-nominated, but a different hook must be chosen. Also, two different hooks of the same article should not be added to the same update or updates that follow each other.
• DYKs should not be very good articles (VGA) already as VGAs already get their own spotlight on the Main Page as the "Selected article".

Proposed facts should	Suggested facts (also known as hooks) should be	Suggested pictures should be
Have in-line citations	Interesting	From Wikimedia Commons
Articles on living people must be carefully checked to make sure that no unsourced negative information is in the article	Short (less than about 200 characters, including spaces)	Small (100x100px)
Articles with good references and citations are needed.	Neutral	Already in the article

• Editors may only nominate up to four hooks at any one time. If more nominations are desired, existing nominations must either be removed, promoted to one of the DYK queues or placed in the holding area.
• Hooks cannot be moved to a queue or removed from the nominations page until they have been there for a minimum of three days from the date they were originally posted. The only exception to this are hooks that can be "snowed". Hooks can also be removed if there has been no input from the nominator after five days from the last review. Unreviewed hooks however cannot be removed until there has been a review.

Chart

Please use one of the following templates when reviewing nominations.

Symbol	Code	Ready for DYK?	Description
	{{DYKyes}}	Yes	No problems, ready for DYK
	{{DYKagf}}	Yes, WP:AGF	Hook cited to a source not on the Internet, but to a reliable publication.
	{{DYKfixed}}	Yes, issue fixed.	The issue preventing DYK, or request for improvement has now been fixed.
	{{DYKalmost}}	Almost	Article is on the way to being ready for DYK, but the reviewer has questions.
	{{DYKno}}	No	Article is unable to be used on DYK, the time limit has passed, or there are larger reservations.

THE NEXT EMPTY QUEUE IS Template:Did you know/Queue/6 AND THE NEXT UPDATE WILL BE FROM Template:Did you know/Queue/4

Nominations

Please add new nominations below with newer nominations at the top. Nominations should be headed with a ===Level Three=== header containing a link to the article that the hook is from. If possible, all hooks should contain a relevant file from Wikimedia Commons – this can be a picture or a sound. The subject article should be '''bolded'''.

Zombie Walk

• ... that the October 2013 New Jersey Zombie Walk (2009 zombie pictured) took the Guinness World Records crown for the largest crowd of zombies ever? Flesch Kincaid Grade level 5.88 and Number of characters (without spaces) 890.00 Oregonian2012 (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Fisting

File:Fingering 2.jpg

* ... that fisting (anal fisting pictured) can cause air to enter the vagina and lead to a fatal air embolism? Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Come on. Go give WP:PROVE a read. Only (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Assume good faith. The article has been accepted for inclusion in Simple English. It is therefore eligible as a DYK. Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    • By default only. It was Keep, due to No Concensus, not much of an endorsement. Enfcer (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting a Rfd be run again? Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
        • By an uninvolved editor maybe, but to run it again yourself would lend itself to the above stated WP:PROVE. Enfcer (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision:

File:Fingering 2.jpg

• ... that fisting (anal fisting pictured) may lead to death? Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't elaborate much on this. Air embolism doesn't mean anything to most people without an article to explain what it is. A resounding "no" from me regarding the image: not putting that on the main page of the Simple English Wikipedia. I'd even suggest removing it from the article, since it doesn't even show fisting... Osiris (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It shows one of the first steps in solo fisting. Oregonian2012 (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If we're writing for people of eighth grade reading level or lower, perhaps this isn't the best picture to have on the Main Page... TCN7JM 20:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision:

• ... that vaginal or rectal lacerations sustained while fisting may lead to serious injury or death? Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Lacerations needs a link. Osiris (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Giant panda

* ... that the giant panda is an endangered species? Oregonian2012 (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• There's many animals that are endangered species. Not interesting. Sorry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps something more specific? Like how many there are estimated to be left, or the date from which they have been considered so, or the reasons for it? Osiris (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC) * ... that only 1,600 giant pandas (pictured) remain in the wild, making it one of the rarest mammals in the world? Oregonian2012 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Article is a GA and reads at Flesch Kincaid Grade level 7.38.

• There we go. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• A few things. Firstly, the citation is incomplete: what is it and when was it written? Is it a webpage? Or a report? Is there a URL or a publication identification number? It seems from the text of the article that the figure isn't so clear as the hook states. This is an estimate from one source (probably not a very relevant one at that). I highly doubt that a U.S. government agency has conducted any research on the wild population of giant pandas. The figure seems to come from China's State Forestry Administration and the World Wildlife Fund [1] – but their survey was done in 2004, not 2013. Other sources make different estimates. Obviously there are some discrepancies between that, what is written in the article, and what is written in the hook... Osiris (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion:

* ... that giant pandas (pictured) eat bamboo? I'd rather go with this hook. It better coordinates with the image and would have more appeal for children. Oregonian2012 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• • I would recommend this hook for our younger readers, but not for our older readers. Is there a hook about Giant Pandas that can collaborate with both readers? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "older readers"? We're writing for 8th graders. This is about age 13-14 years. The hook ties-in nicely with the pic. Children are fascinated by animals. Oregonian2012 (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with TDKR...8th graders wouldn't be interested/fascinated by that. Elementary school students, maybe. I think the fact's too common knowledge and too uninteresting. Only (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
        • That's what I meant. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
          • We are not required to write only for 8th graders. Writing for the elementary level means anyone above that level can still read the article. Let's get back to our mission. There's no reason to write articles for 9th graders and above. There's already an adult wiki. It's called enwiki. Interestingness is subjective anyway. Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Last time I checked, this wiki is primarily (but not exclusively) for readers who take English as a second language (ESL). These readers may include younger people or older people. Age doesn't matter. The ages of all our readers vary. Chenzw  Talk  03:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision:

• ... that the giant panda spends about 55% of its day and night eating bamboo? Oregonian2012 (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This article has been absolutely gutted. "The giant panda is a bear. It has black and white fur. It eats a lot of bamboo." Are you kidding? This is not Idiot Wikipedia. A few days ago this article had been a Good article – now it looks like it needs demoting. You're giving far too much emphasis on automated math-based software to determine how easy an article is to read. "Giant pandas are bears. They have fur. Their fur is black and white..." Dividing a single clause into three separate sentences is far more difficult to read. You've obliterated the natural flow. Subvocalisation is now a nightmare. You also seem to have removed all the legitimate red links, and almost halved the number of sources on the page. The article needs to be put back the way it was. Osiris (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• An article about pandas would appeal to many people. However, the original article was written at a high grade level, thus shutting out many people. It also contained "current" info cited to links that are now dead. We don't need a long list of zoos that have pandas. Simple is not a directory. The list is dated. It's impossible to keep up with articles that use current info like this. Five years down the road the info is dated. There are probably thousands of such articles at Simple English. The original giant panda article was above the heads of many, many ESL students, school children and the learning disabled. We are supposed to be writing for no greater than 8th grade level. However, if the grade level is taken even lower, the article will be accessible to many more people. The readability tests are not perfect, but they are the only objective measure we have. Let's get back to our mission -- writing for ESL students, children, the learning disabled, and others at a grade no higher than 8. Some articles should be taken to an even lower grade level in order to make them accessible to a larger audience. Oregonian2012 (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision:

• ... that the giant panda eats as much as 40 pounds (18 kg) of bamboo every day? Oregonian2012 (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Edmund Muskie

• ... that Edmund Muskie is the only Polish American ever nominated by a major party for Vice President of the United States? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Not interesting. There are many different ethnicities in the US. Singling out one ethnicity for special notice is childish and divisive. No one really cares about Muskie's ethnicity. Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion: ... that Edmund Muskie held the highest office in the United States government by a Polish American in U.S. history? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No one cares about Muskie's ethnicity. Find another hook that has nothing to do with his ethnicity. Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing wrong with either hook's content. Nothing wrong with talking about someone's ethnicity. Definitely not "childish" or "divisive." However, a better source is needed. Right now it's sourced by an article that appears to be a copy and paste of the English Wikipedia's article. If a better source is found, then I have no problem with this hook. Only (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. A hook should not swing on the subject's ethnicity. Our readers are 14-15 year old 8th graders, ESL students, and the learning disabled. It doesn't take a genius to realize our worldwide audience is not likely to care anything about this obscure man. Or his claim to fame about being a Polish-American. I'm concerned too that accepting this hook for publication will open the floodgates to a tsunami of hooks dwelling solely on ethnicities. This is childish and divisive. When one has nothing else to be proud of, one falls back on one's ethnicity. How many bumper stickers and Tee shirts have you seen boasting about one's ethnicity? "I'm proud to be a (fill in with any ethnicity)-American!" I don't think we should go this way.

RULES: "Whether a hook is not interesting should not be a matter for only one reviewer to decide." --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This man is so obscure. I would be very surprised if any American 8th graders know his name -- let alone 8th graders around the world. I doubt if he is required reading for anyone. Let's get back to our mission. Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not a proper reason to deny a hook. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Let's get back to our mission -- writing articles at no greater than an 8th grade level for ESL students young or old and other readers. Oregonian2012 (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • What does that have to do with Edmund. It doesn't matter if 8th graders or 7th graders or whatever. People around the world will also looking at this hook, and you my friend must to inferring what others will think about it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

• ... that in 1945, then-Princess Elizabeth II joined the British army as a truck driver and mechanic? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 9.1 Article needs to be reduced to at least an 8th grade level. She wasn't styled "Princess Elizabeth II" but simply "Princess Elizabeth".Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • So would it be ... that in 1945, then-Princess Elizabeth joined the British army as a truck driver and mechanic? I can't find any areas in need of simplification. Is the introduction the complex part? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• ... that Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth (now Her Majesty The Queen) joined the British army in 1945 as a truck driver and mechanic? Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Grade level is too high. We are writing for children at the 8th grade level. Article is too complex. It is time for Simple English Wikipedia to get back to its mission and discourage such sophisticated and complex articles. It is not difficult to write at the 8th grade level. Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Article is tagged as "complex". Ineligible. Oregonian2012 (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• • It's an 8.5 F-K grade level and a 61.6 reading ease. I don't think it's worth a complex tag. Only (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• It you've taken the time to read this article you would have found several complex sentences and vocabulary. This article is over the heads of those we are supposed to be writing for. Check our DYK rules: "... readability tests ... should indicate a U.S. grade level of no greater than Grade 8 on (most) scores." We desperately need to get back to our mission. We're losing readers because many, many articles are over their heads. Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm well aware of what the guidelines say. It's at 8.5 like I said. That's an 8th grade level. Only (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's an 8.5 level. Oregonian2012 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and 8.5 = 8th grader. Only (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm working to reduce this article to a 6 grade level. It won't happen overnight. I suggest removing this hook and coming back to it sometime in the future. Oregonian2012 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Besides being complex, is there any other problems? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• The first three sections now read at Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 5. This is good, fifth graders can now read at least part of the article. Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Is the article making progress? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Slowly. It's been tagged as "complex", and thus ineligible for a DYK. Take it down and come back to it later. What's the rush? Save it for the Queen's birthday. Oregonian2012 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Another example of an article that has recently been gutted in an attempt to appease math-based calculators. At least this one still has some substance. The complex tag can go. Oregonian2012, you cannot vote on nominations that you're involved with. Osiris (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I "voted" before I became involved with the article. We are told to put our articles through one of the math-based calculators in How to Write etc. So I've done nothing Illegal. The sections I've revised now read at a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 5.3. This means 6th, 7th, and 8th grade level readers (whether old or young) can now read the article. It was originally at a 9.1 grade level, shutting out many of our readers. Oregonian2012 (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, no: that's not what it means at all. All it means is that the sum of the average number of words per sentence and the average number of syllables per word used in the article now equals a particular score, a score that suggests a certain level of difficulty with the mathematical characteristics of the text. It cannot and does not measure vocabulary, flow, coherence, composition, sentence structure, context, or the use of expressions, idioms, colloquial terms and contractions. All of those things – which are together far more conducive to readability ease – can only be measured by reading the article and writing with them in mind. The idea of writing to appease a particular mathematical formula is fundamentally flawed and is uniformly rejected by the very people who designed these tests. It is not part of any "How to Write" guideline that I know of; please show me the guideline you're talking about. Osiris (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's right here. It's has a link on the main page. It's something like How to Write Simple English articles. Simple English is not a creative writing class where the emphasis is on synonyms, flow, metaphor, imagery, etc. I've worked with ESL students. They learn by reading simple sentences and repetition:. "I live in a house. My house is old. There is a tree near my house. A bird lives in the tree." House is house not abode, dwelling, residence, or home. This confuses ESL readers. This is for the creative writing class -- not Simple. The rules (above) at DYK say: "The article linked should be easy to read. The article should not be tagged as "complex". It should comply with the guideline on writing Simple English articles. If possible, readability tests, such as this (link), should indicate a U.S. grade level of no greater than Grade 8 on (most) scores." The only objective measure we have for grade level is the readability test. It may not be perfect but until something better comes along we should use it. Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages? That's the guideline you're referring to, correct? It doesn't contain anything about re-writing articles to get a particular score on a readability test; in fact, it doesn't mention readability tests at all. I have no idea why you're talking about "creative writing" and synonyms: we were talking about the writing with the primary objective of appeasing a mathematical formula that is based on the frequency of spaces and full stops. Yes, don't use metaphors and keep synonyms to a minimum; this is part of conscious discipline, not automated calculation. Keeping natural flow and cohesion is more important to enhancing reading ease than meeting mathematical formulae. A paragraph that reads as one cohesive piece is far easier to read than one that reads as several pieces put together. Readability tests do not measure the complexity of an article, and getting a score of 9.0 does not automatically mean that 8th graders cannot understand it. All they measure is the mathematical surface characteristics of the text. They're good as a quick, easy assessment, to alert writers that there may be an issue with complexity. The score should be taken at face value, and you shouldn't re-write articles with the goal of meeting a particular score. You should instead look to improving sentence structure, vocabulary and cohesion as your primary means of reducing difficulty. Those are things that are in the guideline. Osiris (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Holding area

Hooks that are ready to be moved to a queue for update may be held in this area until a space in a queue comes available. To be eligible to move into this area, a queue must meet all of the promotion guidelines as outlined above. Hooks in this area do not count towards a user's nomination limit. If you change or re-review a hook in this area, it must be moved back to the main nominations section for discussion to continue. The only changes permitted here are formatting or spelling changes, or adding an associated file.

THE NEXT EMPTY QUEUE IS Template:Did you know/Queue/6 AND THE NEXT UPDATE WILL BE FROM Template:Did you know/Queue/4

Oprah Winfrey

• ... that Oprah Winfrey is the only African-American among the 400 richest people in the United States? Oregonian2012 (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Article now reads at Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 5.8. This is good. Winfrey is a major celebrity. I daresay everyone in the civilized world has heard of her. Now, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade level ESL readers young or old can read about her.

Jack Klugman

• ... that Jack Klugman was the last surviving actor from the twelve jurors from the 1957 movie 12 Angry Men? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Your source may be a tabloid. You should be able to find a more respected source such as the NYT, Time magazine, or whatever on this. Oregonian2012 (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Would the LA Observer be a good source? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• The reference looks okay to me, but add your Observer link anyway. I just made a small edit to the sentence in the article to better match what you've written here and to make it a bit clearer. Osiris (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's fine. Osiris (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Too many red links, esp. in the lead. "There should be no red linked categories or red linked templates." Oregonian2012 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How about now? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It was never a problem. There were never any red linked categories or red linked templates. Red links to articles are fine. Osiris (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• No issues here. Only (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Text says "Peggy Crosby", but Infobox says "Peggy J. Compton". Which is it? Oregonian2012 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that our audience is familiar with this actor. We're are writing for 8th graders, ESL students, people with learning disabilites, etc. They don't know or care anything about Klugman. It is highly unlikely that anyone would be stimulated to read the complete article about Klugman after reading this hook. The hook is uninteresting. Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the subject matter. There is nothing in our guidelines that says "Hooks must be about subject areas that are common." The general population would not care about the football player you nominated last week. You're making up ridiculous standards here. Only (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My "Nos" fall under "larger reservations" and are perfectly legal. If you think this way about the football hook, you could have said "No" when you had the chance. Oregonian2012 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

RULES: "Whether a hook is not interesting should not be a matter for only one reviewer to decide." --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Great. Osiris (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

• ... that Bobby Fischer was 14 years old when he won his first United States chess championship? Only (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Article reads at Flesch Kincaid Grade level : 8.54. This is a bit too high for our readership. Reading level should be at 8 or below 8.
      • But this hook is about a good article. I'm pretty sure this article is simple enough. My opinion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
        • It's complex sentences like this that carry it over the top: "After his match, Fischer promoted a new type of chess called "Fischer Random Chess", where the pieces were randomly shuffled before the game so they would be on different squares to start every game." Oregonian2012 (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hasn't changed much at all since it was assessed by the community. Good to go. Osiris (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Article reduced to a 7.7 level. Oregonian2012 (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)