Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Main Page/2006

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DISCUSSION SECTION STARTS HERE

To sum up, I'd like us to make the Main Page as factual as possible, but with unusual facts and articles to convince readers that we are pulling their leg on April Fool's Day. However, the joke's on them: we are actually presenting the truth, not a bunch of jokes!

This is in response to last year, when we had a discussion on the mailing list leading up to 1 April, 2005. I made a proposal somewhat like this, and some folks in general were quite supportive of it. Now, I'd like to put this forward earlier so we have more time to work on it. Please provide any feedback you may have on this proposal. Thanks! --D e athphoenix ʕ 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's well written so far. Kudos for thinking so far ahead. Perhaps a neat "A1" logo could be used on appropriate content... +sj + 22:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. I actually originally wanted to propose this last month, to give even more time to look at this. I'm a little annoyed with myself for forgetting about this until now. --D e athphoenix ʕ 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome Idea

It seems rather meta to turn the joke around, I love it. Great idea. Just one question: How do we keep it a secret from the casual readers until "the day" ... can we count on most not knowing about all these other namespaces? ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I doubt many casual readers will find this in the next couple weeks, most don't know there are namespaces, but a handful who are in on the joke can spread rumors so people actually come look on the day. ("Vut goot eest a Doomsday joke eef nobody knowz abowt eet!?"). For extra fun, throw in exactly one totally serious DYK, make people crazy looking for the joke in a sober article. For weirdness in the news, plagiarize Olbermann "Oddball" entries from a day or two before... :-) Stan 23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - this is a good idea. --mav 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is more a joke we're pulling on the readers and casual editors who don't participate in, say, policy discussion or the mailing list. --D e athphoenix ʕ 06:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lame

I consider this basically lame, in that April Fool's is not about News Of The Weird. It's about pulling off pranks. Ideally this effort would be the official April Fool's celebration while a secret cabal of planners works on a real prank (TINC). --The Cunctator 23:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ya, this could be the cover story. Or the secret cabal could be the cover story. OR they could BOTH be cover stories for yet a third nefarious plot. Whichever. Fnord. The QE2 story is NOT "News of the Weird", IMHO, it's a straight story that looks pranked. Whether there are more like that out there or not, who knows... ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's much more lame than, say, opening up an arbitration case requesting that Jimbo, Angela, and Danny all be banned from Wikipedia, deleting WP:AFD, or writing an article about Encyclopædia Britanica taking over Wikipedia (to become Wikipædia Britannica, which I thought was hilarious). But this is a prank we can pull on the readers while not messing up the main articlespace with unencyclopedic information. Perhaps it's lame to try and maintain the illusion that we provide truthful information while trying to pull a fast one on our readers, but I'm still trying anyway; hence, this proposal. :-) --D e athphoenix ʕ 06:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons set out on the Village Pump (Policy} I strongly oppose the idea. Those who wish to engage in the foolishness of this day by changing or adding to the internal contents will never be deterred, but no serious newspaper or other media outlet would lead with a joke and this site, which aspires to being a serious attempt at providing accurate information, should not play with the lay readers' expectations (even by offering strange but true material). If the opening page is a joke, what does that make the rest of the pages? David91 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Most newspapers lead on April Fools jokes every year. See for example The Grauniad's front-page story New Labour lines up countryside role for Charles. It's good if something can poke fun at itself and IMHO, this does just that. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If people are going to pull jokes with or without your approval (which I suspect they will), would it be better to channel them a certain way which is less harmful to reputation, or to just put up with whatever comes up? My thinking is channel, and this proposal does that, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 11:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that my approval is completely irrelevant but I doubt that changing the front page will, to any real degree, channel any activity. This is one project. No doubt, many other editors will hatch their own projects on the day. Which does rather beg the question — whose day are you going to pick. My timezone is not your timezone. So which 24 hour period are you all going to choose and enforce? Is this going to be a U.S.-centric or a U.K.-centric or some other -centric project. Who decides which day is the "day" for these purposes? David91 12:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

To respond to your original post above, according to my proposal, everything on the page is as close to 100% true as we can make it. In fact, The Cunctator doesn't think my proposal is "pranky" enough, and you think providing truthful information is too "pranky"? There would be nothing false about the Main Page at all. Even the featured article must be a genuinely-approved featured article. My template for this is exploding whale, a very unusual article, but also very well written, and clearly of FA quality (indeed, it is an FA). People are going to be pulling pranks and writing joke articles anyway, but at least with an official April Fool's Day policy, we can easily revert any harmful edits to the main articlespace and be able to point to the Main Page as evidence that yes, you can channel all your April Fool's efforts somewhere. As for time zones, last year, it was UTC. Wikipedia is run by UTC, all the logs are done by UTC, and the AfDs are closed by UTC. As for a normal daily Main Page, it would be run by UTC. --D e athphoenix ʕ 12:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

UTC works for me. Other projects I have been involved with use "anywhere in the world" as their window, making it close to 2 days long, but that may be a bit much. ++Lar: t/c 13:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is brilliant, and manages to get the lighthearted mood of the day across without confusing them. If the new main page is selected, you'll need a good FP as well. Can I recommend for the featured picture the dripping tap FP... smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea and a great image, but does the Main Page allow for repeated FPs? They don't allow for repeated FAs, which is why we need to bring one up to FA status (I'm thinking exploding toad) instead of simply recycling one like exploding whale. --D e athphoenix ʕ 16:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article#Spoo, it looks like Raul is planning to schedule Spoo for April 1. Wikipedia:Picture of the day/April 2006 shows a medieval Mickey Mouse is currently on tap for the same date. --Allen3 ^talk 16:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... that picture is perfect. I'm going to list it in the proposal page, though I don't think it's really a proposal, since it's already done. As for spoo, it looks like the main author is objecting in a big way to having it listed on that date. I think it would soothe a lot more people if we bring an article to FA status for the sole purpose of April 1. Thoughts? --D e athphoenix ʕ 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It would have to be done quickly to get it through the FA process in time... How about Nihilartikel? Physchim62 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, although that article is mostly list and would likely need a fairly extensive rewrite. But I'd say it could probably be done on time. If that fails, Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch is always good... smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nihilartikel would be ideal, if it got through FA in time. Otherwise, find something from Wikipedia:Unusual articles. We have to do something fun! _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

I love smurrayinchester's idea of using Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch as the featured article. I'm going to place the article up for peer review. I know it's cutting it close, but hopefully this article can be brought up to FA quickly. If not, maybe some other article that's already FA quality (but not listed on the Main page yet) can be proposed for that day. --D e athphoenix ʕ 18:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, not an FA, but another interesting article to perhaps keep in mind: Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. Just thought I'd throw this in here. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's always the Did You Know section, even though it's not a new article. --FlyingPenguins 07:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

DYK suggestion

A possible item for the DYK section:

The Great Molasses Flood struck Boston, Massachusetts on January 15, 1919, sending a wave of molasses through the streets at an estimated 35 MPH (60 km/h).

--Allen3 ^talk 16:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, DYK is meant for new articles. I don't know how the regulars there would feel about bending the rules. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That was the one part of my proposal that required a tweaking of the rules. It's hard to find strange but true facts in new articles, non? It might be another way of showcasing strange facts (or unusual articles that aren't FA quality). --D e athphoenix ʕ 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In which case why don't we encourage people to create new unusual (but still worthy) articles in the couple of days leading up to April 1st. That way we won't have to bend the rules. CheekyMonkey 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another article to mine: Cinci Freedom. Regards, Durova 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

face it

Admins will wheel war again over what is funny on 1 April. But I am confident it will result in an agreeable level of absurdity. I am opposed to featuring no hoax whatsoever, btw, it just shouldn't be pathetically obvious hoaxes, exclusively. I would prefer an erudite "nihilarticle of the day" along the lines of the toilet paper holder last year. dab (ᛏ) 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Great!

I think its a great idea! It would be great to have a day of humour on Wikipedia, like a national holiday for all the people of different nationalties that use Wikipedia - the finest encyclopedia on the Internet! UKWiki 19:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Downgrade the protection of the Main Page on 1 April to "semi-protected". Ashibaka tock 00:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dislike

I dislike it all. There should be no special treatment for April Fool's Day above any other day. I argued the same thing last year. This is a reference site; there must be zero tolerance for anything that even comes close to any kind of tricks or mischief regarding information. People shouldn't even get the idea that we get involved in that kind of thing, because it will devalue our reputation. And I think we need to get a policy in place beforehand to block immediately anybody who pulls any nonsense that misinforms our readers. Everyking 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

well, I recall last year's prophets of doom, you included, predicting that Wikipedia's reputation will go down the drain if we so much as allow ourselves one hoax. We had a day of hilarity, and nobody has really mentioned it since. You can rest assured that there will be hoaxes again this year, your policy doesn't stand a chance, and you should really appreciate that your consistent spelling of disaster one year ago was entirely without merit. dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unusual articles have found themselves on the main page before. As long as we maintain our high standards for main page articles, how will this harm Wikipedia's reputation? Feezo (Talk) 08:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in having unusual articles on the main page that day, but I remember with horror all the vandalism that occured in article space last year. It seemed like every regular editor, and then some, thought they had the right to edit in april fools jokes everywhere. April 1'st last year was the day where I would not trust the content on wikipedia. And it shouldn't be like that. So I would prefere the whole site was simply made read only that day. Let that be our april fools joke, as boring as that may be. It will save many of us a lot of work, and I'm sure the developers could make good use of a day with a locked database for upgrades or database clean ups or something. Shanes 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Google runs jokes...and they have a good reputation I'd say. 216.61.238.220 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Limit the proposal to just a featured article

Okay, people seem to dislike the whole concept of playing any pranks (especially vocal in WP:VPP). Although I find it very unlikely that there will be no pranks, there is an apparent distaste for laying out anything as an official guideline or policy. HOw about we all just try and get an unusual article up to FA status for April 1? That doesn't contradict anything that's been done for FAs in the past. I like smurray's suggestion: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch seems like a normal article, except for the name. --D e athphoenix ʕ (forgot to sign)

If we're gonna throw out the whole "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" for a day, and agree on this compromise, does it mean that there will be other exceptions to what FAs are shown on certain days, like on Christmas? -- Jeandré, 2006-03-15t20:08z

My proposal is only for April Fool's Day. --D e athphoenix ʕ 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly over the top?

Personally I think we should go all out and make use of the vast comedy resource we already have. Make http://en.wikipedia.org send people to http://uncyclopedia.org for the day and vice versa, and possibly swap logos as well. Ought to confuse people a little *rubs hands in glee*. the wub "?!" 13:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

People hoping to access a reference site will no doubt be disappointed by this turn of events. Everyking 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose this idea, it's going too far. Also oppose swapping identities or logos. Please also remember Uncyclopedia is actually nothing to do with Wikimedia. Rob Church 16:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is funny, but definitely too much. --D e athphoenix ʕ 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea

Great idea, as long as we don't publish wrong facts or hoaxes. For April 1, it would be cool if we just featured unusual articles, pictures and facts. Just a comment: infinite monkey theorem is a serious mathematics article, and it should be removed from the "April 1 FAs". CG 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, being an engineer, I'm quite aware of its mathematical use, but it has an interesting-sounding name. It's also listed in Wikipedia:Unusual articles. I have no objections to its removal, though. --D e athphoenix ʕ 03:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep the "In the news..." section normal

I suggest that the "In the news..." section be kept normal, or casual readers may think that Wikipedia is similar to The Onion. There should also be some sort of explanation on the Main Page that the content isn't made up, and that only the choice of front page articles was done especially for April 1. --Tachikoma 17:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an idea. My proposal calls for a very minimal change, but maybe I should clarify that it may also mean "none at all". --D e athphoenix ʕ 18:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Anything already made an FA?

Are there are any other articles that are already WP:FA status but haven't been listed on the main page yet? I've seen a few interesting suggestions in Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article, such as Read my lips: no new taxes. Are there any others? (I've repeated this question on WP:VPM in hopes of getting more feedback) --D e athphoenix ʕ 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There's Bulbasaur, a Pokémon, and Red vs Blue. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Bulbasaur's been suggested in this thread, and was rejected by a few people who asked why that article would only be appropriate for April Fool's. It's a little unfortunate that some people would feel insulted if their articles were featured on that day (or by suggestions that April Fool's is the only day it could be listed). That's why I'm feeling a little stonewalled, unfortunately. --D e athphoenix ʕ 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest Casu marzu, if an image could be added. A very special article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not currently an FA. I'm actually asking for articles that have reached FA status, but haven't been listed in the Main Page yet. --D e athphoenix ʕ 20:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It could still be a DYK pick (with some rulebending on timeframes, though). That article is hard to believe on first reading, it fits the bill nicely. (although rather disgustingly...) ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I did say it was very special. DYK would be good, if we can bend the timeframe (which I think we could for this day) I don't know of any truly bizarre FA articles, but I'll look. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Kakapo is an FA that hasn't yet been featured, about a funny-looking bird with a funny name. That's about all that's particularly interesting, though. *shrug* zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A suggested alternative for the April Fool's FA, or in addition to...

One of the beneficial side-effects of having an article mentioned on the Main Page is the article will usually see a flurry of improvements to the article. Why not have "Not a Featured Article", and select one woefully inadequate stub on an important subject. ^Blank ^Verse 22:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OOooh, I like! KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I like too... suggestions? _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea, I really love it, but given how resistant some people are just in following normal Wikipedia procedure aspects of this proposal, I think there will be extremely heavy resistance to listing a stub on the Main Page. That might be something to propose early on for 1 April, 2007, but 15-16 days before the day this year might be a bit late. :-( --D e athphoenix ʕ 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I quite like the idea for normal usage, to be honest. Why shouldn't we list things that need improvement? It's just as important as the things that don't; more so, in fact. This is an encyclopedia, and a wiki; let's be flexible and show both the good and the bad. It's quite possible our improvement rate would go up; Raul654 maintains that featured articles benefit from being on the main page, so perhaps a simple little stub would, too. Rob Church 16:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I thought about the idea is from the bunch of edits that happened after my one and only "did you know" showed up on the Main Page. The idea of having a box on the Main Page with five new stubs day for improvement I think is something worth exploring. ^Blank ^Verse 17:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not just for April Fool's. We should have a Featured Stub section, or some other Stub o' the Day type thing (besides the various collabs of the [time period]). --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Now there's a good idea... _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK idea

Here's another candidate with a little WP:DYK bending ... British Rail flying saucer !!!! Even the very name smacks of unbelievability. (note: I have not verified this one, but wow... is that cool or what? can we get an Elvis article in there too somewhere?) ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it! This is a new article, so it definitely belongs in the DYK section. --D e athphoenix ʕ 04:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this in Lar's contributions, and was convinced it had to be a windup. But, no, there's reliable sources including the BBC. It's definitely a "you wouldn't believe it" story. It would be nice if that could get some prominent placing on the main page on April 1st. I'm very much against hoaxing on the front page, but something like this would be great. --kingboyk 08:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Elvis was the fifth Beatle, you know. And stop stalking me! As this discussion thread alludes, the page gets hoaxing but maybe by doing this it can be reduced or eliminated? ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of The Beatles, what about something with Paul Is Dead? It's already fairly extensive and perhaps a good choice for April Fool's. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

An oldie, but a goodie...

For the "In the News" section?:

Water supplies in large potions of the United States, England, and China have been discovered to contain extremely high levels of dihydrogen monoxide.

The wording is way off, and the locations can be specified (to be more realistic) or generalised (to hoax more people). And of course, the link doesn't have to go right to the hoax page. A mock DHMO page could be drawn up in a few minutes about the "harmful effects", with a note directing them to the hoax page at the end. Just an idea. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea; I like it, actualy. That one got me the first time I saw it too. I think that it should definitely be included! --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Very funny. --mav 15:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a real encyclopedia. We are not going to include any phony news stories, nor are we going create "a mock DHMO page" for the purpose of misleading and upsetting people. —David Levy 16:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

But the good thing is, that it isn't a phony news story. You dispute the fact that water supplies contain extreme amounts of DHMO? The "mock DHMO page" wasn't set in stone. And even if it was created, nothing on there would technically be false. It was just an idea. It's having a bit of fun, without being actually false. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If properly worded, including such an item in the "Did you know..." section would be acceptable. Conversely, an "In the news" entry would be a flat-out lie. Likewise, an article designed to deliberately misinform readers about the "harmful effects" of dihydrogen monoxide (even if done primarily via clever wordplay) is entirely inappropriate. —David Levy 19:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, even if I disagree with you, it was just a suggestion. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You disagree that reporting this "discovery" as a breaking news story would be dishonest? —David Levy 19:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In the News

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=EE418016-0667-4C62-9602-0C699962154F 130.71.96.23 05:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia: Not related, but still funny

There might be some amusement to be had by adding Uncyclopedia to our list of Sister Projects. Uncyclopedia will like the publicity and we can probably get them to list us as a Sista Project (not that we need it). The real heart of the matter is that this is what they do and we would do well to link to them somewhere. --gwax UN (say hi) 08:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would propose switching databases with Uncyclopedia on April 1st.

Husky ^{(talk page)} 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest Kitten Huffing as a featured article, or is that a bit too much? ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 16:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll want to see Wikipedia satiring Uncyclopedia. Let's bash them by pronouncing Wikipedia superiority over them! __earth ^(Talk) 05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL @ Wikipedia --Nerd42 15:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Page on Wheels

Inspired by one of User:Marudubshinki's subpages, I propose that, for April 1, we move the main page to Main Page on Wheels. The Wookieepedian 09:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO funny only to a minority even of Wikipedians, let alone of the general public. A bad idea if you ask me. Batmanand | Talk 19:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Batmanand that it's not a good idea. I doubt that many Wikipedians will even get the reference, let alone the public at large. --Tachikoma 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, anyone who does get the joke, is likely to block you and slap a {{wow}} template on your user page--152.163.100.11 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could get Jimbo to move it. I doubt anyone would put the WoW template on his page. And that brings up the question of, why would anyone slap a WoW template on an Administrator's userpage? :P But seriously, I agree, it shouldn't be moved due to the small amount of people who would actuallly get the joke. But it is a funny idea to think about, nonetheless! :) The Wookieepedian 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Brilliant! It may be not too extensively known by it surely does ring a bell to many Wikipedians. I'd support a minor mention of it on the front page! __earth ^(Talk) 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

I see that spoo is a FARC. Does that make it doubtful that it will be a FA on April 1st? Also, I don't think the proposed spoo picture has any impact at the small scale required on the main page. I couldn't make it out until I went to the article, and not clearly even then. I think three other articles also fit the bill: Kakapo, Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve and Quantum computer. Any of them could easily have their precis on the main page factual but offbeat, to sow that essential element of doubt in the reader's mind. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK suggestion

"...that Casu marzu is a Sardinian cheese that normally contains live maggots? And that eye protection is recommended when eating it because the maggots can jump up to 15 cm (6 inches)?" Durova 14:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

...that Willie on Wheels is well-admired and most-love by vandals all over Wikipedia? __earth ^(Talk) 06:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

...that Elijah Craig (1738 – May 18, 1808) was a Baptist preacher from Kentucky, who is remembered chiefly for the invention of bourbon whiskey. FloNight ^talk 13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Klingon in other languages section

The other languages section at the bottom lists the Klingon language as having under 1 article. But there really is a Klingon Wikipedia (see below - link doesn't appear quite right). It has 41 articles. Perhaps we can link to actual Wikipedias that most people wouldn't expect to exist. --kenb215 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record...

Spoo has been chosen as the official Today's Featured Article for April 1. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! That's one down. --D e athphoenix ʕ 15:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Marking a page as a joke

If you really have to fool around with some page other than the Main Page, I've made {{aprilfools}} for this purpose so someone can come back and clean it later. Whatever you do, don't vandalize article space-- it's a tough enough job to clean up the malevolent vandalism without dealing with jokes. Ashibaka tock 22:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Added some DYKs

I've added several DYKs. Combined with the other two, this is probably enough, and it's probably time for some pruning.

...that British Rail had a design for a flying saucer?
...that in Sweden, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 was prounounced "Albin"?
...that Casu marzu is a Sardinian cheese that normally contains live maggots? And that eye protection is recommended when eating it because the maggots can jump up to 15 cm (6 inches)?
...that Elijah Craig (1738 – May 18, 1808) was a Baptist preacher from Kentucky, who is remembered chiefly for the invention of bourbon whiskey.

--D e athphoenix ʕ 15:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Elijah Craig one is a little lackluster. The others are great, though, particularly the Casu marzu. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think the original phrasing in the nominations is funnier than the version on the sample page. Durova 14:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia page swap?

I think the Wikipedia logo and the Uncyclopedia logo should switch places on April Fools day. If you like, that could be the only funny thing. Everything else on WP's page could be normal, just the rotten potato instead of the white sphere and that's it. --Nerd42 15:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah... I don't like the idea of switching anything with uncyclopedia. Just my opinion though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point

This is an encyclopedia. The idea is to observe the spirit of April Fool's Day by including content that seems unusual or implausible, despite the fact that it's 100% real and encyclopedic. The goal is not to turn the main page into a collection of childish jokes. None of the phony content is remotely appropriate. —David Levy 03:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with David. Everyone else is being silly and nonsensical on 1 April so this idea is actually pretty good. Ashibaka tock 17:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

On This Day

I know one of the ideas was to mix one deadly serious (ie: Boring) item into the mix, and see people try to find the humour. So, I suggest, for on this day:

1974 - In the United Kingdom, new administrative counties come into being.

smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. I added the start of Gmail and the Netherlands legalising euthanasia as two "serious" ones, but I can see how such a boring item has a place. I think I'd rather see your suggestion than the euthanasia one, personally. --D e athphoenix ʕ 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

All your ideas are belong to us are still way too lame, boring, boring and lame

I suggest adding a "You have new messages" banner to the top that links to Practical joke. --Nerd42 18:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank's good - I like it. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Only real content. No phony content. None. —David Levy 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Oh come on this front page is pathetic. I suggest unprotecting Wikipedia's front page for a limited time and then leaving it however messed up it is for the rest of the day --Nerd42 15:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is allowed (unprotecting front page), we'll just have Goatsepedia. James Kendall [talk]

Much much better than this main page. I love it! I say we go for this rather than any of the suggested crap currently on the main page (today's FA could still be Spoo I suppose though). BigBlueFish 19:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? —David Levy 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Layout concern

Having as long a title as Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116, bolded, can cause trouble as this makes the left column set to a wide mimimum width; at 800x600 that squashes the right column a tad too much... Radagast 19:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Article example

I made an article, Doorknob (game) that I think embodies the spirit of April Fool's Day for Wikipedia. It was a bitty stub, and I expanded it a great deal. In keeping with this discussion, it is an article that is "fact" but it is quite absurd. The "Fool" part of April Fool's Day, in my opinion, is that someone is being made a fool of. In the case of the article, the fool is clearly me (the author) for spending time writing something so irrelevant. But then.. is it? Isn't it encyclopedic for documenting a game that many of us played as children (or in my case, 31 year old children)? Aguerriero 19:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Poor show. Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia. It is our job to present things in an informative way, and your revision of Doorknob really didn't do that. What we do to celebrate April Fools' must be restricted to places where misinformation may be expected, or to forms which are not misleading, such as choosing a wacky TFA, or where the joke is quickly apparent, such as the "you have new messages" idea, or stamping the joke with an April Fools' tag. You can't do that to a real article. BigBlueFish 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh. I respectfully disagree. The article is informative - it outlines the rules of a game. If someone witnessed others playing doorknob and were confused by it, they could look up my article and achieve enlightenment. Just because I lent a comical tone to it doesn't mean it's not useful information. There is a rather lengthy article about tag - how is mine any different? And I'll give you the "Pain Reference" revert - that was just a joke and I may put it back in tomorrow with the April Fool's tag. Aguerriero 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. Vandalism is inappropriate, regardless of what day it is. Adding a vandalism tag doesn't somehow make the vandalism acceptable. Please confine such editing to the aforementioned Uncyclopedia and the like. —David Levy 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you guys are right. Feel free to edit anything else in the article that doesn't seem factual, or I will do it later today. Aguerriero 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On this day

It is essential that On this day identifies April Fools' Day, no matter what we do. In spite of everything, don't forget that not all cultures recognise April Fools', and it seems stupid for the "sum of all human knowledge" to leave these people confused. BigBlueFish 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons movie

If it turns out to be true that a teaser for the Simpsons movie is attached to Ice Age 2: The Meltdown, like AICN is reporting, then I think this would make a great news story to include. While not "important" news by any stretch, April Fools Day and the Simpsons movie have a long association, and I don't think anyone would actually believe the story either. --Maxamegalon2000 20:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it. The Hollywood Reporter appears to have confirmed the story. --Maxamegalon2000 23:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Any time now...

Is this going to happen? I was so excited! Cathryn 03:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that no one bothered to make any of the necessary arrangements. (This has never been anything other than a "proposal.") It probably is too late now. —David Levy 03:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, spoo is a featured article, as is already known, and I added a few entries to the Selected anniversaries, but it seems that they chose a very boring picture to be featured. I thought someone said that the medieval Mickey Mouse picture was going to be the featured picture for April 1, but I guess that person was mistaken. I put in this proposal too late: I actually planned to do it two months before April 1, but a lot of things happened in my life so I completely forgot. However, a few elements are in the Main Page, but onyl that which is already in line with Wikipedia policy. I am hesitant to place any of the DYKs because the ones we have in this proposal are all from older articles. Well, the British Rail flying saucer one was created in 13 March 2006, so maybe that's new enough for a mention. I'm going to look at the age of the rest of the articles on this day and if the flying saucer one is about the same age, I'm putting it in. --D e athphoenix ʕ 06:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, as it turns out, 28 March 2006 is the oldest of the DYK entries, so I'm not going against Wikipedia policy to put this in. However, the "latest news" could be worth mentioning. --D e athphoenix ʕ 06:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the process for adding news is a little too long: they must be added to Current events first. Any other ideas? I think maybe on 2 April, 2006, I should devote this space to planning out April Fool's for 2007, but the problem is keeping it active for the next twelve months minus a day. --D e athphoenix ʕ 06:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)