Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Today's Featured Picture/Archive 2007

Please use this page for discussions surrounding the creation of "Today's Featured Picture" for April Fool's day 2007

Areas of work needed to complete the front page are:

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

The Mission[edit]

In order to get a funny/unusual picture onto the front page, it must be both a great picture and be used in a Wikipedia article.

Action Items[edit]

What picture? We need to nominate some and vote on them.
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).
If we choose to use a WikiWorld cartoon - maybe we want Greg to draw us one especially for the day?
We have to usher it through the nomination process and make sure it actually does get onto the front page on April 1st.

Candidates[edit]

WikiWorld comic
Mermaid
Baldwin Street, Dunedin, New Zealand
Treatment for female hysteria
Pillow fight flash mob
Chandelier made of Bones and Skulls
The Headington Shark
Street Sign in Austria.
Handiwarke of surgeri

(Removed: Image:Optical.greysquares.arp.jpg, Image:Mad scientist.svg, Image:Villianc.svg, Image:Piratey, vector version.svg and Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png because they've already been on the front page).

Comments[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What about WikiWorld?--Here T oHelp 21:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I recommend the one on the WikiWorld comic, which lloks silly enough. Laleena 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stool Chart[edit]

The stool chart can't get by FPC, due to size requirements. Either a white border should be added, or we drop it, because everthing has to be up with our normal quality. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was thinkng we might be able to get someone to draw a higher-quality (or even SVG) version. —Dgies^t c 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do that, but if you can, it'd be great. I think if it was bigger, and svg as you say, it would be our best option for April 1. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 12:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if we redraw it then it's not the actual chart - right? Don't we need someone to make us a higher resolution scan or the original chart? Hmmmm - but don't we have a copyright issue then? I don't see how this can simultaneously be high enough quality and relevent to the article. SteveBaker 14:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is properly titled "Bristol Stool Scale" and refers to a categorization system and its correlation with intestinal function. The current image is not the "official" chart, but the one published is an aid to a scientific paper, not a definitive drawing.. Think of it like this: What if someone published a taxonomy for say, hummingbirds in a scientific journal and included a reference chart. Would that invalidate an attempt at redrawing those species of hummingbirds? —Dgies^t c 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are in trouble here[edit]

I don't see a single picture in the suggested list that is remotely good enough to make it through to the front page. We still have a month and a half to find one - but we need to work a lot harder at finding something. SteveBaker 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, four of those already are featured and have been POTD at least once already (mad scientist, villain, pirate, and Wikipe-tan). I'd be willing to suspend some of the criteria in order to get something more silly on the front page, though. howcheng {chat} 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we could 'suspend' the rule that requires that the image has been used in an article then that would allow one of the WikiWorld comics to be used. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia) - almost any one of those would serve our purpose.

We shouldn't re-use a picture that's already been used though. The optical illusion is interesting - but I don't think it's all that unbelievable. We need something like the cave painting that I used as a kind of logo at the top of all of our April Fool pages. Something nobody would believe is true. SteveBaker 03:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the illusion (which is really unbelievable until you actually measure the color values on your own) and the Mickey cave painting have also been POTD before, but they might not have been on the Main Page (this was when a Featured Picture only was on there on weekends -- this applies to the mad scientist and the villain because those are old FPs too). I'm all for suspending a rule such as size, but the article one is pretty important -- one of the goals of FPs is to expand readers' understanding of a topic. Besides, the WikiWorld illustrations also run afoul of WP:ASR. I'll try to devote more time into finding something. howcheng {chat} 06:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I was aware of the 'WP:ASR' rule - but the 'A' stands for 'Avoid' - it doesn't completely ban self-reference. The WikiWorld cartoons are a somewhat strange case. You could almost consider them to be articles in their own right - but told in somewhat in pictures. They aren't really talking about Wikipedia itself so much as some specific article within Wikipedia - and those are cross-referenced all the time. I think the reason to perhaps cut them a little slack here is that they are (in a sense) articles in themselves - so they won't likely be referred to in articles. Well, whatever - I think one of those would be an absolutely great thing to put on the front page - they are great examples of the art of cartooning - they are funny and mostly deal with unexpected subjects. They are fairly high resolution - and we could probably pursuade Greg to produce one especially for that day. But I don't see any way we could get one included into an article - unless we wrote a biography of Greg himself. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to meet notability criteria for a living person - so we're kinda screwed. SteveBaker 07:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible approaches[edit]

There are three ways I see that we can go about this. One is to have a silly/unbelievable image that comes with a straight caption. The other is to have an image that is subject to interpretation and we give it a silly/unbelievable caption. The third is to have both (although that might put us dangerously close to Uncyclopedia territory). If we go with an image that actually has a real explanation (but we write something odd for it), then that gives us a little more latitude. For example the following:

Inspiration for The Beatles' "Why Don't We Do It In The Road?"
The origin of the term "Jack in the Box"?
Drinking fountain that recycles one's urine?
NASA announces commercial space flights to begin in 2008?

I don't know that any of these would actually get promoted as a Featured Picture, but you get my point, I hope. howcheng {chat} 07:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we're trying to do is to have a genuine picture with a truthful and relevent caption that appears to be a fake or a joke. Then of course it has to pass FPC - which means it has to be a nice image and it should ideally pass the FPC process without too much bending of the rules. The Minney-Mouse cave painting epitomises that - but it was used last year. Everyone looks at it - assumes it must be a fake - but it's not. But it's not easy to create such images out of fresh air without faking them or otherwise cheating. So in your examples above, is that street sign really inspiration for the Beatles song? If not then we can't say it is. However, if we were to come up with a caption that makes it seem like it must be a fake - then that one could work. Quality issues can be fixed. I'm sure there must be a bazillion high quality photos of that sign on the web - I bet if we asked their owners if we could release the photo under GFDL or into the Public Domain - we'd get them to do that. I've had a lot of success approaching complete strangers asking them to release their car photos that way. SteveBaker 14:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still like the stool chart better; is it possible to change it to svg? I'd say that's the best out of all of these, if anyone knows how to convert the file format. (I'd do it myself, but I've no idea as to how.) · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly fond of the Stool Chart - but that's just my opinion. Anyway - there is no way to "change it to svg". SVG graphics are totally different to ordinary raster graphic files. The only way to get that image as an SVG would be to draw it again from scratch in an SVG art program. SteveBaker 19:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it. So something like Mike the Headless Chicken would be ideal (but we can't use those images because they're not freely licensed). Hmm. I think the place to scour is Wikipedia:Unusual articles but a lot of those don't have proper images. I think I had some candidates in mind last night when I was thinking about this but I seem to have forgotten now. Grrr. howcheng {chat} 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (and OMG!) SteveBaker 19:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found these 2 from that category

Chandelier made of Bones and Skulls
The Headington Shark

Not sure whether any would get passed FPC (the first one was listed in 2004, got denied due to the angle), just thought I'd jump in and give you some more food for thought. --Scot ^t 12:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff! OK - so I think we're zeroing in on the kind of photo we need - now we have to concern ourselves with quality issues. This is supposed to be an example of Wikipedia's finest photography - so we're going to have problems with some of these for that reason. I suppose we can just submit them all to the featured picture process and see which (if any) pass. There might be some lighting tweaks we can do - but basically, what we have is what we have. SteveBaker 14:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is to search Commons for a funny picture. Think of funny things (like that 'face' on Mars - see commons:Category:Face of Mars) and see if there are pictures on Commons. Alternatively, find something funny and get someone to go and take a good-quality, free picture of it. I could feasibly get to Oxford and take a better picture of the Headington Shark (if it is still there), but simpler still would be an appeal to the Wikipedia photographers to produce something suitable. Try Wikipedia:Requests for pictures. Carcharoth 18:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note for User:Diliff, who is a good source of Featured Pictures, and who lives in London. howcheng {chat} 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? It failed at FPC twice and caused much controversy in FPC but nevertheless a good picture that illustrates something well. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the image coming up as a FPC. I remember hating how irrelevant and irreverend it is. That's exactly why you should propose the image for FP, stating that you want it to be used for April Fool's Day! Royalbroil^T : C 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it wouldn't pass if it wasn't for AF, which means it isn't Wikipedia's best work, it's just a manipulation of the process. I say we wait for Diliff's pic. · AndonicO ^Talk 13:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? Readro 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quality doesn't look that great to me. I think that you should propose it anyhow, since it was featured on Commons. No harm in trying. It sure has interesting content! Royalbroil^T : C 04:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's from 1906 so that would likely be glossed over. Just need to put it in an article so that it can be nominated for FP. Readro 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I think it can pass FPC, since it's historical and eye-appealing (IMHO). It can replace this one in the Louis Agassiz article, since it's higher resolution. · AO ^Talk 17:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've proposed it. Fingers crossed. Readro 18:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's doing well, so far at least... · AO ^Talk 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The better scan of the image was just promoted to featured status! Readro 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the copyright is on this, but I thought it was quite funny. There are others such as this, or this. Bensmith53 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA! Those are funny. Unfortunatly, they don't meed the criteria. The Agassiz one is old, so it might pass. · AO ^Talk 10:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a winner[edit]

Image:Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg is now a Featured Picture. And now we shall commence the writing of the POTD caption. Would anyone like to start? howcheng {chat} 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be completely true right? · AO ^Talk 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. howcheng {chat} 03:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a reference to "head in the sand"? Bensmith53 10:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

On the Stanford university website, there's a picture with a caption - "Many stories were told about Agassiz' natural instinct that when the earthquake came, he stuck his head underground to find out what was going on in the earth below and with his finger pointing saying, 'Hark! Listen!'" Readro 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link: [1] howcheng {chat} 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How strange. I've seen this picture several times before, but never thought about it being a candidate for the April Fools page. Congratualations on finding this. Carcharoth 20:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a first attempt:

Picture of the day

A statue of Louis Agassiz, a Swiss-American geologist, after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, on the campus of Stanford University. It is said that when the earthquake struck, "[the statue of] Agassiz stuck his head underground to find out what was going on in the earth below and with his finger pointing saying, 'Hark! Listen!'"Photo credit: USGS

Archive – More featured pictures...

Feel free to improve as needed. howcheng {chat} 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a few more parts should be added from this: “Somebody—Dr. Angell, perhaps—remarked that ‘Agassiz was great in the abstract but not in the concrete.’” What was most extraordinary about the incident was that the statue was imbedded into the ground below nearly to the hips but only broke at the nose. The nose was refastened and the statue was returned to its original place, this time better secured. As amusing as this image of Agassiz was to the Stanford community, it suggested to the public that Stanford was in chaos.

Maybe something like "Agassiz was great in the abstract, but not in the concrete", and the fact that only his nose broke should be added. Perhaps is is also worth mentioning that Stanford was in seeming chaos. Any thoughts? · AO ^Talk 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that concrete quote, but there isn't that much room. Also, I was trying to write something that would elicit the desired, "No way! You're making it up!" response while still being all true. howcheng {chat} 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like, "This confirms that "Agassiz was great in the abstract, but not in the concrete."? It would fit at the end (I tried it on preview, and it looks reasonable). · AO ^Talk 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's just a joke and not really a fact. Plus I think it needs more context -- why was he great in the abstract? I removed the line about the students shaking hands with it and the blurb fits a lot better now (notice it doesn't run past the edges of the photo). If we had a portrait-oriented pic, we'd have a lot more room to work with. howcheng {chat} 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know that was how the size limits worked. It's fine then, since we can't really add too much more. It makes sense, is hard to believe, and is informative. Pretty good if you ask me. · AO ^Talk 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we say we're done on the main page? · AO ^Talk 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]