Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Main Page/Archive 2007

A mock-up is presented on the adjacent project page. Please help complete it.

April Fool's Main Page 2007 (which may be referred to as AFMP 2007) provides idea development space for the proposed presentation of the Main Page on April Fool's Day 2007. The proposed components of the Main Page may be presented on 1 April, 2007, and if deemed a success, may be a guideline for presenting the Main Page on future April Fool's Days. See 2006 archive for last year's discussion and result, which now may be considered a guideline for presenting the Main Page on April Fool's Days 2007. Although less important to the direction of AFMP 2007 than AFMP 2006's results, April Fools' Day may help provide some direction as well.

Changes limited to truthful changes: The Main Page should be kept to the same high standard as for other days, but with a special caveat: that the Main Page be composed of facts and articles that are true, but either unusual or manipulated in a way as to sound unbelievable. While readers may sometimes come to Wikipedia expecting some joke article for April Fool's, the proposal is to make the Main Page so unusual or unbelievable that the reader will conclude that the Main Page is presenting jokes as fact, but the joke is actually on the reader: everything on the Main Page is as close to 100% factual as we may make it.

Truthful whimsy is OK: Traditionally, April Fool's Day (1 April) is a day of fun and practical jokes in some cultures. While it is fine to follow in the spirit of good fun when editing Wikipedia, we must not forget that Wikipedia is above all an encyclopedia that people will read for information. At the same time, Wikipedia should not be so formal and humorless that it cannot show some whimsy in how it presents itself to its readers.

Main page administrator coordinators: April Fool's Main Page 2007 project affects all five changeable sections on the main page. To have an April Fool's content appear on the main page on April 1st, some of the main page rules for these changeable sections may need to be bent. Thus, the project may need the approval and agreed upon cooperation from those running changeable main page sections. Mostly, this may involve deciding which main page rules could be bent in their respective section and in fact bending those rules, reviewing proposed main page content to ensure it meets that sections main page requirements, and ensuring that this content made its way to the main page on April 1st. The following is a list of administrators who have agreed to serve as AFMP 2007 main page administrator coordinators:

• Did you know... - Lar
• In the news -
• On this day... - David Levy
• Today's featured article -
• Today's featured picture - howcheng {chat}

"We" is us: In this proposal "we" may refer to any group of Wikipedians interested in editing articles for April Fool's Day. If you have more than a passing interest in this effort, please post your user id below (and if you participated in AFMP 2006 participant, please note that as well):

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates

Type	Family	Handles wiki table code?†	Responsive/ mobile suited	Start template	Column divider	End template
Float	"col-float"	Yes	Yes	{{col-float}}	{{col-float-break}}	{{col-float-end}}
	"columns-start"	Yes	Yes	{{columns-start}}	{{column}}	{{columns-end}}
Columns	"div col"	Yes	Yes	{{div col}}	–	{{div col end}}
	"columns-list"	No	Yes	{{columns-list}} (wraps div col)	–	–
Flexbox	"flex columns"	No	Yes	{{flex columns}}	–	–
Table	"col"	Yes	No	{{col-begin}}, {{col-begin-fixed}} or {{col-begin-small}}	{{col-break}} or {{col-2}} .. {{col-5}}	{{col-end}}

^† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

Please post your thoughts/comments in one of the eleven sections below.

---

Featured article

In the past, various unusual articles have been improved to featured article status. These include exploding whale, heavy metal umlaut, Japanese toilet, spoo, and Joshua A. Norton. People seeing some of these articles listed on the Main Page sometimes believe that it is a joke, when in fact, these articles are well-written and quite deserving of featured article status.

An unusual article (such as exploding toad or Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch) will be edited up to Featured article status and listed on the Main Page on 1 April, 2007. The "recently featured" sentence could be changed to "other featured", and link to the above-mentioned unusual featured articles.

Given the amount of time it takes to bring an article up to Featured article status, an alternative solution would be to use an article that has already been made a Featured article, but has not yet been listed on the Main Page (such as Read my lips: no new taxes).

• We still need suggestions for the article on April fool's. Any suggestions? The Placebo Effect 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• WP:FARC and Unusual articles are potential sources. Last years Spoo came from WP:FARC.-- Jreferee 16:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Exploding toad

I think we can bring exploding toad up to FA status in time for April Fool's. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• If brought up to FA status, this definitely would be an AFMP 2007 FA candidate. Spoo was good for AFMP 2006 because all the text on the main page probably left the reader shaking their head. Exploding frog seems to have enough odd factual information so that its main page entry could be written in a way that also leaves the reader wondering whether it is true. -- Jreferee 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Other than the name, the topic does not seem enough odd factual information so that its main page entry could be written in a way that also leaves the reader wondering whether it is true. -- Jreferee 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is better for DYK. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

I just asked Raul654, and he said that if we can make Uncyclopedia a featured article, he would have no problem making it article of the day! I think we have found a winner! The Placebo Effect 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm for it. I would just let unencyclopedia know. JoeSmack ^Talk 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Haha! Gold! I'll help too! | AndonicO ^{Talk • Sign Here} 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm in!! Let me know what help you need! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created an uncyclopedia subpage that could be used to bring the page to featured article status. I've added some suggested headings that we could use (Note:They are the same as the wikipedia page!). the oage can be found at - (Talk_Uncyclopedia/featured article) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to Talk:Uncyclopedia/featured article, as the previous one was still in the main namespace. -- ReyBrujo 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• yeah i'am all for it let me know if i can help Dr prince 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Unusual or unbelieveable requirements

I'm all for Uncyclopedia if we can create a mainpage description that meets the unusual or unbelieveable requirements for the project. I don't think Uncyclopedia is unusual like an exploding whale. That means the eight or so sentences addressing Uncyclopedia appearing on the mainpage need to be manipulated in a way as to sound unbelievable and yet be true, just as Spoo was for AFMP 2006. I think we need to come up with a draft for the main page before deciding on the FA article. -- Jreferee 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Uncyclopedia should be chosen, not because of the article being unbelievable and amazing, but because it's being on the main page is unbelievable and amazing. People will think that it's not a well written article, only a joke. Besides, they are our parody; how many times has a creationist newspaper had the Flying Spaghetti Monster on it's front cover? | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In the news

Since this describes current news, April Fool's activities, if any, are limited to finding unusual pieces of news and publishing them in this section. This section would be unchanged or largely unchanged from any other day, albeit with a couple of interesting or unusual events that may have occurred in the days leading up to 1 April, 2007.

• I like the idea, but I feel that this particular part of the plan (the ITN) has been done so many times by so many sites. I mean, the idea is to basically do what Fark.com does every day. I love the concept of using an unusual article that is actually of Featured quality to be the article of the day, and using an odd Featured Picture. Thus, if everything else is going to be April Fools-y, ITN might as well be, too. There's just something about it that doesn't sit right with me. -- Kicking222 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A note on In the news

What happens if something quite noteworthy happens on March 31 or April 1? The example that seems to come to mind easiest is, what happens if Jimmy Carter, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, etc. dies? If ITN ignores it completely, it's putting jokes before news. If ITN includes it with jokes or relatively funny news, it makes readers question whether the death is true or not. If ITN reverts to full news, it clashes with the humor throughout the rest of the page. Of the three, I'd prefer the last option, but this is something that might be worth discussing, in case such an event does occur. Ral315 (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I mentioned that before. It's a huge concern. In fact, even if nothing earth-shattering happens, people come to the front page (in part) in order to find more depth to current news. Just look at today's ITN: If you are interested in the Serbian elections - it would be hard to reach the article about Vojislav Sesel if you'd just heard him mentioned on the radio (how do you spell that?) - but on the front page there are no less than seven links to relevent articles. That's a valuable service even on "slow news days". All of the other things on the front page are more or less random trivia as far as most of the general public are concerned - and replacing them with silly trivia is no more or less of a service to them. Nobody really cares what the featured article is - or the featured photo - and the DYK and OTD stuff is also pretty much random trivia. But replacing ITN is different - putting almost anything up there replaces something of importance to people. I think we should strive to put ONE item into ITN that is current - but silly or hard to believe. We should try to make it blend in so it's more of a joke when people actually click on it - but we shouldn't bump any recent news items in order to do that. The trick will be to find something quickly enough...that's going to be tough. SteveBaker 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If we can't, we can't. I agree with your proposed strategy. —David Levy 14:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There are various places that specialise in such things, such as Ananova. Glancing at that page, I think there are at the moment at least a couple of things that all of newsworthy, improbable and recent. Hopefully when it comes to the day there will be something that stands out. TSP 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I want fartypants! Huh? What were we saying? Oh, yes, good idea, Ananova will work well. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not prepare an April Fools ITN and a real ITN, and just have a link at the bottom of the section to "Today's news" - it'll give the joke away, but the real news will remain just a click away for those who still need it. In fact, a link to a 'serious' page for everything might be a good idea. You set up the page under a neutral title (April 1 2007 Main Page) or something. Assemble the April Fools stuff there, and then switch the two around. This has the advantage that if things go seriously pear-shaped, someone can step in and switch everything back to a 'serious' page with minimal hassle. I'd seriously recommend having this back-up plan. Carcharoth 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea; the joke news in the template, but not on the rest of the news page. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries/On this day...

This section should focus on unusual, but factual events occurring on 1 April, mostly April Fool's jokes played by other people. This would serve the dual purpose of providing fact and reminding the reader that this is April Fool's Day, which may further convince them that the Wikipedia is presenting "joke facts". Selected anniversaries can include anything that happened as described in April Fool's Day#Well-known hoaxes.

I like the idea of listing notable jokes played by other people but it means that genuinely notable events such as the end of the Spanish Civil War or Iran overthrowing the Shah will never feature in On this day. I'm unsure of the best way round this. --Cherry blossom tree 00:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "1970 - the Gremlin is introduced to the American market." Piet | Talk

that's a good start. but i think something like "1970: Gremlin turned loose, charges through American market" would be better. with this new sentence structuring, the status of gremlin is now vague and [i]seems[/i] monster like, while not saying anything untrue about the event. just plain ol' American hype. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bierleka (talk • contribs) 11:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Last year's page listed notable jokes, so this seems to be a good time to find real, notable, but improbable events that occurred on April 1, then present them appropriately. Some that seem to me to have potential:

* 1318 - Scots capture a small town from the English again. English march to get it back again.

* 1924 - Adolf Hitler jailed for trying to start a revolution in a beer hall

* 1974 - Berkshire gives a 374-foot horse to Oxfordshire

There are a few others which might be possibles if we can get the right angle... lost bombers bombing Switzerland? (Maybe a bit too serious.) Battle of the Five Forks (surely there's something in that name). Apple Computer founded (can we find out any improbable facts about this)? Sadly, Justinian I seems to have been among the least comic of Byzantine emperors. There are probably other good occurrences which aren't listed on Wikipedia's date list. TSP 05:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One of my favorites:

* 1957 - The BBC recommends that radio listeners place a sprig of spaghetti in a can of tomato sauce and hope for the best.[1]

* 1980 - Opening of Britain's first nudist beach in Brighton.

(I was living with my g/f in Brighton at the time. It was a bit cold for us to take advantage of the new facilities that day! A lot of people assumed it was an April Fool's joke - but it was very serious.)

Also, some others I was able to find:

* 1918 - RAF founded

* 1974 - Iran declares itself to be an Islamic Republic.

* 1973 - Britain introduces VAT (Value Added Tax) to replace Purchase Tax and SET.

That definitely wasn't a joke. :-(

* 1965 - Britain announces the formation of Greater London - comprising the City of London and 32 Metropolitan Authorities.

* 1960 - United States launches its first weather satellite.

* 1958 - First Aldermaston march for nuclear disarmament in Britain.

* 1948 - The blockade of Berlin begins with Soviet troops enforcing road and rail blocks between Berlin and the Allied Zone in West Germany. The Allies mount a massive airlift to keep West Berlin supplied.

* 1947 - School leaving age in Britain raised to 15.

* 1947 - Britain nationalises the Electricity Industry.

* 1945 - World War II: American forces invade the island of Okinawa in the Pacific Ocean.

* 1935 - Britain introduces Green Belt legislation to stop indiscriminate building on many areas of the countryside.

Maybe there is scope here: "Britain passes law requiring Green belts."

* 1924 - The first gramophone to change records automatically goes on sale.

* 1877 - Eddison announces invention of microphone

" 1816 - Jane Austen writes: "I could no more write a romance than an epic poem. I could not sit seriously down to write a serious romance under any other motive than to save my life; and if it were indispensable for me to keep it up and never relax into laughing at myself or other people, I am sure I should be hung before I had finished the first chapter."

SteveBaker 05:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Identify joke

When many of the famous newspaper April fool jokes were committed there was usually a clue that should be spotted... but there are always people who ignore it. I suggest that "On this day" talks about the idea that several years ago Wikipedia had a joke special page for April Fools day Victuallers 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But that isn't notable when compared to spaghetti trees. Also, this isn't really a joke, so it wouldn't fit in. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

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

Please provide a signature after your message. Thank You! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A good approach to this Main page section may be to comb the weird but true posts outside of Wikipedia and develop articles on those topics that do not have an article on Wikipedia. Please post your article suggestions below under separate subheadings. -- Jreferee 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comply with DYK rules?

The question is, are we going to abide by the normal rules of DYK? That is to say, in general, articles featured in DYK need to be less than five days old or has to have been expanded beyond a stub in the past five days. To find four or five articles created (or greatly lengthened) between March 27 and March 31 will be tough... unless we purposely create some weird articles in that short span of time. It would certainly be possible, assuming people could decide upon what topics on which articles should be created and bring together sourcing. -- Kicking222 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think the fudged with the rules last year on April Fool's I don't see why we can't this year. The Placebo Effect 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Last year's DYK highlighted articles that seemed like April Fool's jokes but were actually real and referenced. Casu marzu was my nomination - it collected some amusing comments on its talk page afterward. The rule that got stretched was about the articles' newness. These gems don't appear every day. Let's dig up some more in this vein and write snappy summaries this year. Durova^Charge 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• If provided topics, I would be happy to create one or two April 1st, well referenced DYK articles. Also, I think if we create the articles in user space between now and April 1st and only move the article to namespace on or after March 28, 2007, that would meet the five day DYK rule. -- Jreferee 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe we need eight April 1st DYK articles to ensure that the main page, April 1st DYK space is filled. -- Jreferee 16:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

How about creating them in userspace prior to 5 days before, then moving them to mainspace just before 1st April? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose anybody will object to articles that don't fit the criteria making an appearance as long as the reason is stated on the noms page (at least I won't). Obviously if they do fit the criteria, so much the better. It will mean that a small backlog will build up, but I'm sure we can stretch the eligibility period for those articles that get pushed off as a result - we don't work rigidly to 5 days. Yomangani^talk 01:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Did last year's AFMP DYK articles go through the DYK noms page? -- Jreferee 02:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they were determined here. —David Levy 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be best if they are put on the DYK noms page this year, even if it is just for information, otherwise we are likely to see them removed by somebody not aware of the conversations going on here. Yomangani^talk 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For reference, last year's April 1 DYKs are shown here, though there was a bit of back and forth reversion, particularly about the prescence of a certain General Butt-Naked. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was in on last year too. Some bending happened but the outcome was awesome. TRUE articles seem mandatory to me though, I would not want to see that rule bent. if the expansion wasn't exactly within 5 days, so be it... but let's at least have the expansion or creation be sometime in 2007 or at least since the LAST april 1 ??? And if we have to, maybe we can put some notice somewhere so people don't futz with the article selections because they don't like Butt-Naked or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lar, here. I think we can keep it "unbelievable" and still have it comply with DYK guidelines. I'm planning to write a few April Fool's style DYK articles myself. Nishkid64 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already started gathering some ideas. I'll be working on them in userspace though. --Majorly (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Escamoles

• And in that vein I'd like to nominate Did you know...that escamoles, which are delicacies in some varieties of Mexican cuisine, are actually ant larvae? Durova^Charge 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agnes Hotot

• Another one we could actually create within the five day span is Agnes Hotot. The top Google return for her is a copyvio from her entry in a book called The Encyclopedia of Amazons. Basically the DYK entry would read ...that Agnes Hotot entered a jousting tournament in Medieval Europe, and that after she won her match she bared her chest to prove that her opponent had been defeated by a woman? Of course the article would cite the dead trees reference. Durova^Charge 00:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Water hoax

One should b about the Water hoax The Placebo Effect 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles McKinley

• ... that Charles McKinley shipped himself home to his parents in crate? The "Charles McKinley" Wikipedia article contains copyright info from here. If I remove the copyright text from the Wikipedia article, the Wikipedia article will be a stub (less than 1,000 characters)and available for April 1st DYK. If everyone agrees that this would be a good April 1st DYK entry, I'll prepare a user space article. -- Jreferee 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

• ... that Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch is named after a railroad station? | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured picture

Will we be able to use the pirate picture or will we have to find a new one? The Placebo Effect 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably the pirate one; no other "jokelike" picture could pass FPC. I still don't know how that one got through... | AndonicO ^{Talk • Sign Here} 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the featured picture? A photo that looks too faked to be real maybe? SteveBaker 23:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a basic copy of last years April 1 page, We need some new content for all of them. If someone could find a good picture to make featured for this day, I would love to see it please. The Placebo Effect 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is most pictures wouldn't pass the FPC process. I'll look through the archives though. (I don't think we have the villain or the pirate anymore) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What about WikiWorld?--HereToHelp 21:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the criteria for Featured picture is that it has to be used in a Wikipedia article - none of the WikiWorld cartoons are. SteveBaker 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mad scientist.svg, Image:Villianc.svg, Image:Piratey, vector version.svg are all still Featured Pictures, as is Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png. howcheng {chat} 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

While it fails WP:FPC resolution requirements, it would not be too hard for someone to create a new version of Image:Bristol Stool Chart.png which could pass WP:FPC. Thoughts? —Dgies^t c 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternately, perhaps if there was a little retouching of This contemporary illustration of the Feejee mermaid. —Dgies^t c 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the stool chart better, but are those "types" official? Of course, it doesn't meet FPC criteria, so we will probably have to use one of the ones Howcheng suggested. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well unless Bristol Stool Scale is a hoax, the chart (or a version of it) was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. —Dgies^t c 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page fixed text

By consensus (below), the AFMP 2007 contributors have decided not to seek approval to modify main page fixed text, including the sections such as (i) the Donation section, (ii) Other areas of Wikipedia, (iii) Wikipedia's sister projects, (iv) Wikipedia languages, (v) Masthead. -- Jreferee 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Masthead

How about adding "even those without a sense of humor!" to the nameplate as in:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. (even those without a sense of humor!) 6,938,137 articles in English

Arts Biography Geography

History Mathematics Science

Society Technology All portals

-- Jreferee 23:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, and it's not annoying, like the "random articles in the searchbox" idea. I think it could do, unless there's a policy/guideline that prevents that kind of thing. | AndonicO ^{Talk • Sign Here} 00:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "even those without a sense of humor!" also links to the April Fools' Day page in case the reader still does not get what's going on. It's also a play on the 'have fun' aspect of Wikipedia. -- Jreferee 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a have fun aspect? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk • Sign Here} 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we mustn't mock our readers or insert any direct references to April Fools' Day (which is not a worldwide observance) other than a straightforward OTD mention. The idea is to include legitimate content that seems unusual without compromising the site's normal setup. We can have some fun, but our standards must be upheld. —David Levy 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I believe that it does hold up Wikipedia's standards while being whimsy. Although the joke is on the readers, the language play is on the editors, not the readers. It shows Wikipedian's can laugh at themselves. The statement that 'even those without a sense of humor can edit Wikipedia' is true, is a whimsy clarification to Wikipedia's often cited, trademark phrase "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and is an aid to help the reader conclude that the Main Page is presenting jokes as fact. Wikipedia should not be so formal and humorless that it cannot show some whimsy in how it presents itself to its readers, such as by maintaining the site's normal setup and present this subtitle addition to the site's normal setup. The dynamic link to the April Fools' Day page may help those whose culture does not have April Fools. In any event, the link easily can be eliminated or redirected. -- Jreferee 16:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Editors are readers, and to imply that someone who doesn't appreciate April Fools' Day has no sense of humor is an unkind, unprofessional insult. Making fun of people on the main page (whether through your suggestion or last year's similar nonsense, which unwittingly doubled as a racial slur) is absolutely unacceptable.

2. As you know, there shall be no fake content on the main page (unless a sysop wishes to be blocked for the remainder of the day). We won't actually be "presenting jokes as fact," and while someone might arrive at such a conclusion (because some of the content will seem unbelievable), it would border on an outright lie to directly imply that this is the case.

This is an encyclopedia, not Uncyclopedia. Our polices don't change because it happens to be a particular date that involves pranks in your culture. —David Levy 16:56/17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The terms mock, unkind, unprofessional, outright lie, break the encyclopedia, and insult seem to be judgmental in tone and/or ill-considered accusations of impropriety. The phrase "I assume that you're kidding" seems to belittle the contributor. Each of these were posted on this page. I do respect the experience you bring from AFMP 2006 to this AFMP 2007 project, however it may help to maintain a reasonable degree of civility towards each others. AFMP 2007 should be a fun effort for all of us. Thanks. :) -- Jreferee 18:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone here of impropriety, but I refuse to sugar-coat my responses regarding this very important matter. A bad idea suggested by an intelligent person acting in good faith remains a bad idea, and it isn't uncivil to tell someone that his/her idea is bad. You're entitled to disagree with my assessments, of course.

And no, I'm not belittling anyone. I genuinely assumed (and still assume) that JoeSmack was kidding about borrowing material from Uncyclopedia. —David Levy 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. We don't change anything with setup, only information then? | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The dynamic link to the April Fools' Day page seems to telegraph the intent of this project. To provide a more subtle approach, I removed the dynamic link to the April Fools' Day page from the masthead phrase "even those without a sense of humor!" so that the masthead proposal now appears as:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. (even those without a sense of humor!) 6,938,137 articles in English

Arts Biography Geography

History Mathematics Science

Society Technology All portals

-- Jreferee 18:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You accuse me of belittling people, but this is precisely what you propose we do on the main page. That's absolutely unacceptable. —David Levy 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

After rereading your posts and the above AFMP rules, I agree that any addition to the fixed main page text that is directed at people in a less than positive light is not in keeping with the fun spirit behind the AFMP. Also, qualifying the positive phrase "that anyone can edit" with a negative leaning phrase "even those without a sense of humor" is not unusual or manipulated in a way as to sound unbelievable, which AFMP requires. Thus, I withdraw my masthead request. -- Jreferee 00:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Donation section

How about redirecting the donation section to a chosen charity independant of the wikipedia foundation? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Minimize Featured Article

Would it be possible to have a Featured Redirect or a Featured Disambiguation Page? The Placebo Effect 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That might be funny to established editors but not to a general readership, who aren't familiar with the different types of Wikipedia pages. Too in-jokey I think. Redquark 18:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the subtlety of this idea :-)      →    Today's featured disambiguation page

Would look cool in a discreet location, e.g. bottom right corner of "Today's featured picture".

And this is one stunt that surely won't insult anyone ... at worst slightly puzzle.

No obvious violation of wikipedia policy .. except maybe "relevance".

I disagree that it's an editorial in-joke. Anyone that's used wikipedia for five minutes will be familiar with the concept of Disambiguation Pages. And if they're not - what better introduction to it.

-- Abut 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There could always be something more generic, like Featured Badger or something along those lines. Readro 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Themes other than Wikipedia

Wikiendo

Well there's always parody, copy an famous encyclopedias just avoid the lawsuits. lol. Or make the page full of one subject and change the main page accordingly. For example, "Wikiendo" can be this year's subject. The main page would be filled with everything Nintendo related - like a crazed fanboy took over. The hues of gray & white in the background would be changed to hues of red & white, etc. This is something that can easily be done I guess. I'm that experienced with Adobe Photoshop. Changes done at the adjacent page seem a little too discreet for someone looking for a quick find here. Just to spark some inspiration, this is what GameFaqs did. Again full of one subject, X-Box [2]. FMF|contact 01:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to go down very well here. The plan has to be to put up true facts - written to our usual standards - but somehow contrive to make them very, very hard to believe. The joke is that this is just a normal Wikipedia front page - and the April Fool is entirely in the heads of our suspicious readers. It's good if we can pull it off. SteveBaker 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New look joke

I think we could fake out the people by changing the look. Perhaps give them a few extra links and a theme for it. Like, WikipediaX, a more "extreme" Wikipedia. D-Caf 01:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I Would love it if we were allowed to pull off such a theme. Does anyone else have any other theme ideas? The Placebo Effect 15:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing to other days (e.g. Christmas, Halloween and Easter), there isn't really a specific theme for April Fool's Day. Nothing represents it. It would be a better idea if we have a new look at Easter or Halloween but it won't work out on April Fool's Day.

OhanaUnited 02:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant creating a theme like april fool's like we changed. i.e. Wixitreme, The Extreme Encyclopedia Anyone can Edit. The Placebo Effect 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know that there was a theme on 4/1. I hadn't join Wikipedia at that time yet. OhanaUnited 16:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's such a good idea. Everyone would be confused, including those who knew about it. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk • Sign Here} 15:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Add cartoon

I wonder if there is anything we could do to get a WikiWorld cartoon onto the front page? Those generally look like joke articles. SteveBaker 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. By the way, Image:Piratey, vector version.svg (the pirate) is still an FP, much to my surprise. I doubt it can get much better than that. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There were lots of complaints about Piratey when it appeared on the main page, but they were mainly due to the caption (which was just copied from the lead of Pirate, instead of describing Piratey as the generic cliché of a pirate). Actually I think it's what triggered today's more picture-specific main page FP descriptions. Redquark 19:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I was talking to the folks over at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. They point out that one absolute requirement for a featured picture is that it's actually used in a Wikipedia article. None of the WikiWorld cartoons are because that would be self-referential - which is a No-No.

Maybe we need to write an article about their creator - Greg Williams. I wonder if he meets notability criteria?

SteveBaker 04:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the quote when WikiWorld was first started was something like "don't hurry to write an article on him". I would say, until something else happens, he's non-notable. Ral315 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 archived

I've copied the 2006 version to its archive page at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/2006, i'll now update this project page to use the current wikicode. —Quiddity 07:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside the main page boarders

Random Redirecting

Is it possible to bring searchers to a random article when they search for something? Gab.popp 20:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be a very mean joke. We would probably get annoyed when we can't search for anything too. Imagine the headline on CNN... "Wikipedia flops!". :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk • Sign Here} 21:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, what if you could still put in a URL and get the correct article, but searching just randomly redirects? Hope you don't mind, i did a small edit to your post. Gab.popp 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No. We are not going to break the encyclopedia as a joke. —David Levy 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What if the "Random Article" figure is contrived to send clickers to certain pages - past hoaxes, etc. - Triviaa 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That would ruin our reputation too. | AndonicO ^{Talk • Sign Here} 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Untruthful or non-whimsical modifications

Fake press release?

A couple years we did a press release saying we were being bought out by Britannica -- how about Google? Heck, if we tried, we could try convincing them to play along... :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheProject (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

It's rather unfortunate and embarrassing that some of the most trusted members of the community have vandalized our main page. Thankfully, any such behavior will now be met with prompt reversion and a stern warning. —David Levy 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better to present unusual events (that are true) rather than making something up. It would be easiest to do this for "Did you know?" and "On this day", much harder to do for current news and events. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

We could borrow some uncyclopedia material for the FA of the day. Personally, I was always fond of Pong! the Movie... JoeSmack ^Talk 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you're kidding. In any event, I'll note that Uncyclopedia's content is not licensed under the GFDL. —David Levy 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved/unstated guidelines issues

Modifying text external to the mainpage boarder

Consensus - Text external to the mainpage boarder cannot be modified as part of the AFMP project, even if that modification would be a truthful, whimsical modification. -- Jreferee 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside the mainpage boarder are the navigation, search, toolbox, and other language panes. The Wikipedia logo, user buttons, and the legal (copyright) box appear outside the mainpage boarder. There appears to be an unstated consensus that this area is off limits for the AFMP project. -- Jreferee 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Jreferee is trying to determine who or what group controls (or drives/determines consensus, however you care to put it) these things outside the frame as it were... (the donation box, the navigation pane, the copyright box, etc)... these things display on EVERY page, not just the main. I support the effort to identify and document these things for the benefit of the AFMP 08 and beyond teams... I also support the apparent consensus that we not change any of these things this year. (Steve B's note on political capital is spot on) Note that changing THESE sorts of things can be a huge impact to the server I beleive, as it hits every single page ever. I also urge helping Jreferee document this stuff if you know. (I gave a few clues but ran out of knowledge already) (move this to the right section if I flubbed, with my blessing) ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Modifying fixed mainpage text

Consensus - Fixed mainpage text cannot be modified as part of the AFMP project, even if that modification would be a truthful, whimsical modification. -- Jreferee 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is text on the mainpage that does not change from day to day. An example of modifying existing mainpage text with a truthful, whimsical modification would be to modify the "recently featured" sentence under the Today's featured article section to read "other featured" so that prior AFMP 2006 FA article Spoo could be listed. Consensus from AFMP 2006 and the present proposal for AFMP 2007 are against modifying fixed mainpage text, even if that change would be a truthful, whimsical change. This issue seems to be resolved.-- Jreferee 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding to fixed mainpage text

Consensus - Fixed mainpage text cannot be added to as part of the AFMP project, even if that modification would be a truthful, whimsical modification. -- Jreferee 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is text on the mainpage that does not change from day to day. An example of adding truthful, whimsical text to fixed mainpage text would be adding the phrase "(even those without a sense of humor!)" below "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." in the Masthead (see proposal above under the Masthead section). The five mainpage sections affected by this are (1) Masthead, (2) Donation section, (3) Other areas of Wikipedia, (4) Wikipedia's sister projects, and (5) Wikipedia languages The issue that needs to be resolved is whether truthful, whimsical text can be added to fixed mainpage text as part of the AFMP project. Approve means you approve adding text to the fixed mainpage text as part of the AFMP project. Disapprove means that you do not approve adding text to the fixed mainpage text as part of the AFMP project. Please provide your reasoning below with an Approve, Disapprove, or some other position. -- Jreferee 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Will wait on other comments Disapprove - my Masthead addition seemed like a good idea, but on reviewing what I just wrote to propose this issue for discussion, allowing truthful, whimsical text to fixed mainpage text seems too open ended. You could end up with so many additions to the AFMP mainpage that the look and feel to the mainpage would change and the AFMP April fools intent would be lost. We could limit the addition to fixed mainpage text to one addition. I would like to review the reasoning of others before posting my conclusion (vote). -- Jreferee 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) OK, I'm convinced. The humor will be in the choice of truths we tell, not in the addition of new material. -- Jreferee 02:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that this matter is up for discussion. It isn't. Placing silly and/or degrading remarks on the main page is vandalism. Vandalism is against Wikipedia policy 365 (or 366) days per year. This cannot be "voted" away. —David Levy 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

At present, there are no approved guidelines specific to AFMP. One editor telling another editor you cannot do this has not been sufficient to keep this page under control and seems to have driven away some of those who otherwise would have been willing to help with content. An objective of these consensuses is to develop consensus rules quickly that may be utilized to politely inform people that, although their idea is appreciated, it does not meet the AFMP rules approved by consensus. This should help us retain volunteers and keep this page under control so that we may better focus on AFMP content. More in particular to your post, limiting this vote to silly and/or degrading remark additions to fixed mainpage text still leaves open the question of non-silly and/or non-degarding remarks additions to fixed mainpage text. It is important that this consensus come to a decision that covers all possible situations, not just some. -- Jreferee 23:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"No approved guidelines specific to AFMP"? You think that we need a special rule against vandalising the main page on 1 April?! —David Levy 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think saying you can add AFMP text to fixed mainpage text so long as it is not vandalism leaves too much open and would result in hurt fealings and loss of AFMP volunteers through conflicts over issues that were not predetermined. -- Jreferee 01:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. I'm not saying that this type of editing is okay "so long as it is not vandalism." I'm saying that this type of editing is vandalism. —David Levy 02:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't class it as such. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" - WP:VANDAL. Altering the format of the main page is not intrinsically vandalism - adding, for example, "(even those without a sense of humor!)" would not be a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. That isn't to say that such an alteration is a good idea, but surely this discussion (which seems to be heading for 'disapprove' in any case) can be had on a rational level, rather than reduced to labels? (WP:VANDAL: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors".) TSP 04:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I disagree. Adding a disparaging comment to the main page as a joke (a proposal that Jreferee has withdrawn) is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The problem is that some people (including sysops) believe that it's okay to compromise Wikipedia's integrity if the date happens to be 1 April, and they often cite the fact that we don't have a specific rule against April Fools' Day pranks. My point is that we need no such rule; vandalism is a policy violation on any date.

2. The passage regarding "alienating or driving away potential editors" refers to newcomer tests. Excepting 1 April 2006's anonymous edit (enabled by a sysop who decided that it would be funny to unprotect the main page), anyone capable of editing the page is an experienced user who should know better than to engage in such nonsense. —David Levy 04:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I see your point TSP. The content of the main page is controlled by various groups. Main page fixed text can be modified or added to with the right approval from whoever presently controls what appears on the main page fixed text. Since changing the main page fixed would not fit within this project, there is no point in seeking that approval. In regards to the labeling, labeling something as vandalism is not a personal attack if it is well intentioned.-- Jreferee 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Disapprove - Whilst there might be humor possibilities, I think we have to spend our 'political capital' carefully. If we want to make a mess of the home page, we're likely to stir up a hornet's nest of diapproval and wind up getting nothing whatever done. We're going to need a certain amount of help in 'bending rules' in order to get this done well - and we should spend our favors wisely. Besides, if we follow through with the goals we've set out then the humor will be in the choice of truths we tell - all else is superfluous. SteveBaker 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Disapprove Per David Levy. We should change the facts and information, not the setup or presentation. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• SOME fixed text on the main page itself (like the you can edit message mentioned in the lead of this section) is not one of the 5 major thematic areas. Jreferee is trying to determine who or what group controls (or drives/determines consensus, however you care to put it) the fixed text specific to the main page. I support the effort to identify and document the main page fixed text things for the benefit of the AFMP 08 and beyond teams... I also support the apparent consensus that we not change any of the main page fixed text this year. (Steve B's note on political capital is spot on) I also urge helping Jreferee document this stuff if you know. (I gave a few clues but ran out of knowledge already) ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bending the mainpage rules

Consensus - For the AFMP project to work, there is a need to have the mainpage rules bent. -- Jreferee 17:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Each section on the mainpage that periodically change has certain rules that usually are met before an entry makes its way onto the mainpage. The five mainpage sections affected by this are (1) Featured article, (2) In the news, (3) Selected anniversaries/On this day..., (4) Did you know... and (5) Today's featured picture. The issue to be decided is whether the AFMP project needs to comply with these rules or may these rules be bent slightly given the whimsy nature of the AFMP project and the added difficulty of meeting some of the rules to post on a particular date (here April 1st). Approve means you approve bending the mainpage rules as part of the AFMP project. Disapprove means that you do not approve bending the mainpage rules as part of the AFMP project. Please provide your reasoning below with an Approve, Disapprove, or some other position. -- Jreferee 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Disapprove - The mainpage rules should not be bent as part of the AFMP project. AFMP 2006 started so late that it may have been necessary to bend the mainpage rules to develop the AFMP 2006 page. We've got three months to develop AFMP 2007, so I don't think last years rule bending is applicable for AFMP 2007. Since the present approved rule is that the Main Page should be kept to the same high standard as for other days, bending the mainpage rules would not seem to keep the usual same high standards. If we cannot put in the extra effort need to produce an AFMP page and comply with mainpage rules, then that the AFMP page for that year should be skipped. -- Jreferee 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Approve - within reason. For example, whilst (within the rules) we could write a great featured article - to stay within the rules we'd have to wait our turn to be featured on the front page. We'll have to bend the rules very slightly in order to have our article pre-empt the queue to hit April 1st. So a certain amount of rule-bending is definitely needed. However, I think we should strive to minimise the amount of bending we need - if only because we KNOW that a lot of humorless/bone-headed folks will get in our way if we push this too hard. I just don't want us to write in stone "Thou shalt not bend any rule". SteveBaker 20:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I see your point. Instead of a vote, I think we need to review the rules for each of the sections and come to a consensus on which rules for each of the five sections are required to be bent to achieve an AFMP page. As for the humorless/bone-headed folks, I'm still amazed that AFMP 2006 occurred. -- Jreferee 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• As noted above by SteveBaker, a certain amount of rule-bending is required. As for the actual qualification criteria, I personally believe that they should be upheld, with the possible exception of DYK. Displaying a non-featured article as TFA, a non-featured picture as TFP, unimportant news in ITN, or insignificant events in OTD would compromise the encyclopedia's integrity, but including some non-new articles in DKN would not. Furthermore, while it would be fine to create new articles in advance and move them to the article namespace within five days of 1 April (as SteveBaker suggested), this is the exploitation of a technicality (which is no different in spirit than simply using pre-existing articles). —David Levy 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We can get stuff into DYK under the letter of the law. I agree that we may prefer to bend the rules here - but we really don't have to. ITN is the major problem though. To find items that are 'important' yet also surprising or funny and to have them happen within the usual 'couple of days' timescale of ITN - that's really tough. So if any rules are to be bent - then the highest priority is to get some kind of agreement-in-principle to bend the ITN rules. There seem to be few guidelines about what goes into ITN, mainly it seems that the purpose of the section is not to relate to new articles - but simply to throw up a bunch of links to existing articles that someone who is interested in breaking events might want to read. How the heck do we do THAT at short notice? Another problem with ITN is that unlike all the other sections, it's a useful service to people who come to Wikipedia seeking background to news items. It could well be argued that by subverting this section for the purposes of humor, we are depriving millions of people of access to our usual deep background to important breaking events. It could be argued that we should leave ITN alone. A reasonable compromise might be to try to get just ONE really off-the-wall event into the list and leave the others well alone. SteveBaker 02:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

End it at noon

It is a common practice (mostly by adults trying to spoil kids' fun) to declare April Fools' day to be over at noon. Since some people have expressed concern about serious "On this day..." events never being featured, why not have, at least for a few hours before whatever time April 2nd's OTD's go up, a normal main page? --Random832^T 10:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that any midday chosen will inevitably be long before some peoples' midday and long after others'. Whose midnight do the "on this day" and so on change over on, anyway? TSP 14:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - but also, the rule about only pulling pranks in the morning is only a part of the tradition in some countries. Here in the USA, the entire day is available. In the UK, the morning-only rule has not been much observed since maybe the 1970's. Add to that (as TSP points out) that Wikipedia is read all around the world - and we really have no hope of correctly observing this part of the tradition. Heck, a good proportion of the planet will see our efforts on completely the wrong day. Worse still, if we reverted to normal Wikipedia after 12 hours, everyone would have to prepare TWO front pages - and the poor folks who have their hard-fought-for front-page-featured-article/photo up on the front page for only 12 hours would be suitably aggrieved. Finally - technically, we aren't pulling any pranks. We're trying to make everything we do factually correct - so anyone who thinks we are pulling a prank is merely fooling themselves - that's the beauty of it. So for many reasons, this has to be a 24 hour thing. SteveBaker 15:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah they're factually correct, but the concern I saw stated about OTD's was that stuff that can't fit into a "whimsical" theme will never be shown on april 1. Maybe just switch the OTD's over? --Random832^T 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A dose of reality

In cold reality, there are strict limits beyond which we cannot stray before the more boring members of our community will get very, very upset indeed. I think we should stop thinking in terms of anything that changes how Wikipedia works - or how it looks - or anything that changes the structure of the front page.

We have to live 100% within the bounds of what a normal Wikipedia front page is.

Hence we need to find things that are funny - or very hard to believe (but still true) - and get them through the standard review processes so that they all come together on April 1st.

So, let's please stop wasting time trying to think of ways of subverting the thing - it's not going to happen.

Instead we need to come up with the following things:

1. A featured article. It has to be funny - or very hard to believe - and it has to be "An Example of Wikipedia's best work". So we're going to need a well written, carefully researched article - with copious references, really good English.
2. We need to stage the creation of at least a handful of new articles such that they meet the DYK rules of being less than 5 days old on April 1st. Then extract a bizarre fact from each and get it onto the front page.
3. We need to find a bunch of weird things that have happened on April 1st in the past.
4. As soon as it's April 1st anywhere in the world, we need to comb the newspapers, TV, etc to find really strange things that happen - and get them into the news section. We have no idea what those things will be - and it's going to take organisation to get it together on the day.
5. We need a photograph, picture or diagram - that's also weird and/or funny - yet visually compelling enough to make it into the front page featured photo.

Some of these things need to be started NOW. The photo, the 'On this day' and the featured article need to be started immediately if we want to get them done and in the front page queue by April 1st. We can start writing the articles to provide DYK snippets - but we can't do it in the main article space because if we do, they won't meet the DYK rules. We have to put them together elsewhere and move them into article space on March 26th or so.

The news stuff is HARD. I think we need to find Wikipedians who live in places close to the International Date Line who can scan the news for the day shortly after midnight their time and find some humourous stuff. That needs to be slapped into articles and gotten onto the front page before it's officially April 1st in Wikipedia time. We need a team who can do that. Timing is everything.

SteveBaker 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Last year, we relaxed DYK's rules to permit the inclusion of articles that weren't new or newly expanded from stubs. This was acceptable because it deviated only from the letter of the law (not the spirit of the project).

Regarding ITN, it will be quite difficult to come up with strange news that's of enough international importance/interest to include (even if a decent article update/creation has occurred). —David Levy 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll help wherever I can. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve, David, and Andonico. Your comments are important. However, this project is trying to develop content to the five separate areas of the main page. If the discussions are not focused separately on each section, this talk page could end up a big mess. To add better focus to the discussions, would you mind breaking up your comments above, reposting the information under the already existing headings above, and then deleting these original comments. Thanks. -- Jreferee 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Action Items:

I'd like to try to move things along a bit. Let's get together a list of action items and see if we can get some volunteers for each part:

1. Featured article.
   1. What are we going to write/promote? We need to pick either a new topic or an existing article to nominate for FA. I think we need half a dozen nominees - then we vote/get consensus on which one is most suitable.
      • The only candidate I've seen so far is Exploding toad...which could work.
      • Their is also Uncyclopedia but their is currently n edit war their bout reliable sources. The Placebo Effect 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • A lot of Wikipedians are very antagonistic about Uncyclopedia - making that into a FA would be a major struggle - particularly if the article is already in edit-war mode. What references could we possibly quote? Aside from uncyclopedia itself, it's barely mentioned. Think: "Featured Article"! SteveBaker 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Using google news archive search shows many results, but you have to pay to get them. But a lot of them would work. What's the policy on that? The Placebo Effect 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
   2. We have to work hard to get it up to featured status. This may be very difficult and might take several attempts.
   3. We have to usher it through all of the phases leading up to FA.
   4. We need to make sure it's on the front page on April 1st. This means starting in on it fairly soon.
2. In The News (ITN).
   1. It seems like we should try to get one weird/funny item into the ITN list.
   2. This will have to be done just a day or two before April 1st - so we should make sure that we are all set up to scour the news around the world for weird/funny stuff. I'd like to see everyone on the 'team' working hard on this from about March 28th or so.
3. Did You Know (DYK).
   1. We need to find half a dozen weird/funny/unlikely facts.
   2. Ideally these should come from new articles or expanded stubs - so we should consider where we're getting these facts from - do we need to write new articles and put them into article space shortly before April 1st? Do we need to expand stubs? What?
   • I volunteer to participate, or lead if necessary, absent someone else that wants to lead more strongly than I do, the DYK effort. I see this as actually one of the easier efforts. I am fine with bending the 5 day rule as needed, but if late entries turn up that are in guideline, even better. Funniest/bizarrest will be my guide if I'm in charge of this, not strict adherence to 5 day... ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Featured picture.

1. 1. What picture? Again - we need to nominate some and vote on them.
      • I'd like to use a WikiWorld cartoon - 'Thagomizer' comes to mind.

        

        Thagomizer

   2. Whatever we choose has to be used in an actual Wikipedia article. Can we write an article that NEEDS a WikiWorld cartoon? Maybe Greg Williams (who draws them for us) is sufficiently notable that we could write a short Bio article on him and illustrate it with a WikiWorld cartoon? Maybe WikiWorld in itself is notable (it's a bit of a self-ref...but maybe that's OK considering that we only need it to get the image accepted).
   3. If we choose to use a WikiWorld cartoon - maybe we want Greg to draw us one especially for the day?
   4. We have to usher it through the nomination process and make sure it actually does get onto the front page on April 1st.
2. On this day (OTD)
   1. What bizarre things can we think of that happened on April 1st - preferably things that aren't April Fool's day related.
   2. Again, someone has to take the action to get these through whatever committee deals with this stuff.

This is quite a lot of work - some of it has to be delayed to late March - most of it needs to be started now. SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Steve. You make some great points. However, this project is trying to develop content to the five separate areas of the main page. If the discussions are not focused separately on each section, this talk page could end up a big mess. To add better focus to the discussions, would you mind breaking up your 16:53, 22 January 2007 post above and reposting each topic under the already existing headings? Thanks. -- Jreferee 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that (as with most Talk pages) those topics get scrolled up the screen and because people treat talk pages like email or forums, nobody reads them anymore and people start writing about other wild stuff that we've pretty much already discounted. How about we fork off five sub-pages - one for each area of discussion? SteveBaker 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Creating five discussion subpages is a great idea. We also have another problem in that this AFMP 2007 page should itself be a subpage under the overall AFMP project. The AFMP 2006 should be a subpage under the overall AFMP project. There was an AFMP 2005 project, but I think it was all contained in a listserve. If you look at the history of this page, it looks like it includes the history of the AFMP 2006 project as well. The overall AFMP project eventually should comply with Wikipedia:WikiProject. However, since the addition of content to the front page requires the approval of those already charged with maintaining the front page, we probably can continue forward with AFMP 2007, while restructuring the project and working to comply with Wikipedia:WikiProject. At present, I don't have time to take all of this on by myself. If you have the energy to take on this huge reorganization task, I would be happy to help. -- Jreferee 17:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to simply dump the 2006 (and whatever remains of 2005) into an '/Archive1' page. It's ancient history now. SteveBaker 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That would work. The more ambitious thing to do is an "UNMERGE" where you delete, partially restore (undelete the newer part), move it to your destination, and then restore the rest of the revisions. If you have a good break point it's just a matter of clicking a lot of revisions individually. Tedious but doable. It also can be done whenever, its just the more edits, the more revisions to checkbox :) ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we should have something simple, witty, and funny. I like all the ideas on this talk page. I suggest we should add a bunch of "fantasy" entries, something like with pictures but is totally fake. Like, taking the Exploding Toad picture and saying prehaps, "On This Day...A riot of stuffed animals flung by fifty third graders at the Bobito School hit a toad so hard it combusted, becoming the first ever exploding toad in history." Okay. It was weird. And maybe not simple, witty, and funny, but it was the best thing I came up with...D-Caf 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)