Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Main Page/Archive 2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Use this page for general discussions about April Fool's day 2007 - but please use the sub-pages (below) for discussions and suggestions relating to the specific parts of the page.

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 this talk page.

The Ground Rules[edit]

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.

Scope of project: Wikipedia is divided into hundreds of departments, six of which are classified as Main Page departments. The Main Page departments include (i) Did you know (dept.), (ii) In the news (dept.), (iii) Picture of the day (dept.), (iv) Selected anniversaries (dept.), (v) Today's featured article (dept.), and (vi) Main Page design discussions/Main Page Redesign Project (closed). The first five departments control the changeable sections on the main page (e.g., "content") and the sixth department controls the fixed design surrounding the changeable sections (e.g., "design"). April Fool's Main Page 2007 is limited to working with the first five departments to coordinate the content appearing on the main page from 00:00 to 23:59 on 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Coordinators and Members[edit]

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 department rules for these changeable main page sections may need to be bent. Thus, the project may need the approval and agreed upon cooperation from the appropriate main page department. 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 department coordinators:

"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):

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

Suggestions and Comments[edit]

Avatar's Idea[edit]

I think we should find the most esoteric Non-mainstream thing in the archives and frontpage it, assuming it is of good quality. I can help, being an obsessive hoarder of random and useless knowledge as well as smidgens of everything else :-) Maybe also switch the "on this day" thing to March 32nd instead of April 1st. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatar of Nothing (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ooh OOH! We could unvandalize an article on uncyclopedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatar of Nothing (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No one likes my ideas appaerently, oh well... Avatar of Nothing 12:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing[reply]

Identify joke[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Not really a joke, you say? —Random8322007-01-29 18:08 UTC (01/29 13:08 EST)

Fake Link[edit]

How about we do something like put a link to a page in wikipedia but instead it takes you to a completely different page. i.e. having a link that says "tree" but it takes you to something like "Alexander Gram Bell" Smartdude123

I think that'd just be annoying above all else. If it was done, it'd have to be for only one or two links and done in a witty way. --Jonnty (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be less annoying if the link and the page had something in common. i.e. having a link that says "bell" in an article about the liberty bell, but it takes you to something like "Alexander Graham Bell". Or a link that says "tree" in an article about trees, but it takes you to "One Tree Hill". The concept should be to not have the two things completly disconected. --Teresa.Fr (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2007

Main page fixed text[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

I think there should be a whoopie cushion with the words in Wikipedia we trust as a temporary logo. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the page has to be up to the standards of other days. Would we use a whoopie cushion on July 18? (random date) | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Jigsaw Globe" should be replaced with a "Jigsaw Flat Earth" in the same style with e.g. the sun rotating around it, held up by four elephants on the back of a turtle etc... Hypnopomp 12:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masthead[edit]

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.
6,816,010 articles in English

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia has a have fun aspect? ;-) | AndonicO Talk • Sign Here 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per above, "Our polices don't change because it happens to be a particular date that involves pranks in your culture" -- in my understanding of *Wikipedia's* culture, we celebrate April Fools day, as do thousands of other hacker-originated projects. April Fool's day is a part of Internet culture, not a national or regional culture. -- phoebe (brassratgirl) /(talk) 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...or rather, not just a particular national/regional culture. --phoebe (brassratgirl) /(talk) 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. We don't change anything with setup, only information then? | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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!)
6,816,010 articles in English

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Small idea, but how about building a joke, along with the AFD-note, into the masthead? Something like:
Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone but you can edit.
6,816,010 articles in English

Staxringold talkcontribs 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like the last one. {Slash-|-Talk} 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a great idea, very nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatar of Nothing (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If we agree to change the masthead in any way, it should definitely be the last one. Bensmith53 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donation section[edit]

How about redirecting the donation section to a chosen charity independant of the wikipedia foundation? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting ideea, as long as it doesn't inhibit donations to Wikipedia, and that chosen charity doesn't mind.Chamberlian 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minimize Featured Article[edit]

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

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

Themes other than Wikipedia[edit]

Wikiendo[edit]

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 [1]. FMF|contact 01:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
What he said -- we're not looking to mislead the viewers. Let me tell you a simple story. When I was in the Netherlands, I didn't know the Dutch name for a "duck-billed platypus." And so I described it to my housemates -- "It lives in Australia. It's maybe kind of like a rat, but it's about half a meter long or so. It has this big brown duck bill but it's all furry all over, like an animal. But it lays eggs. It has these big floppy webbed feet, with big poisonous claws on it, and this big beaver tail."
Now, what did they say when they heard of this duck-billed marmot that lays eggs thing? They said, "you're making that up."
That is the reaction that we want to instill in people.
(To finish my tale, after my housemates claimed that I was making it up, I asked around the faculty at the technical university I was working, still trying to find out the Dutch name of the platypus. Again, nobody knew the word "platypus," so I described it, and again, nobody believed me that such a thing could exist. I couldn't convince anybody that such an absurd creature existed until I found out that the Dutch word for "platypus" is "vogelbekdier." Then people started going "oh, yes, een vogelbekdier, I've heard of those before.")
-- Drostie 03:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New look joke[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

2006 archived[edit]

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)[reply]

Outside the main page borders[edit]

Random Redirecting[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No. We are not going to break the encyclopedia as a joke. —David Levy 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if the "Random Article" figure is contrived to send clickers to certain pages - past hoaxes, etc. - Triviaa 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would ruin our reputation too. | AndonicO Talk • ;Sign Here 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very inappropriate to have anything that interferes with normal use of wikipedia. Maybe there should even be a "backup" main page, though —Random8322007-01-23T15:19:54UTC(01/23 10:19EST)

Like if you search for "Main Page" you go to the real Wikipedia? Or we could give out a guide for users to get to the articles you want. Like we all get a message where we can type into a text box and get the real page. Smartdude123

The only way I see this working in our favor (or at least not to our disfavor) is if we put a sign on the front page that says that it was intentional, but that would ruin the joke.

Untruthful or non-whimsical modifications[edit]

Fake press release?[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Uncyclopedia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think this has been previously proposed (and probably will be for future years).

Perhaps a "page of verifiable facts that #look# like they have been extracted from Uncyclopedia" (eg the dwarf pine named after the somewhat tall Pal Maleter - see link on that page. Jackiespeel 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new enough that this may be an old idea, but one way to retain truthfulness (and avoiding the WP:NOR dictum ... no new jokes, either) while being "true" to the April Fools spirit would be to highlight known and famous tricks, hoaxes, frauds, etc. For instance, putting Piltdown Man as a lead article on the Science portal, Ponzi Scheme on the Business and Economics portal, etc. BSVulturis 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another humorous article (more ideas on this list, perhaps?)[edit]

Not sure where to put this on this messy page, but content from Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet, would, if it hasn't been used before, work well for this. Lenoxus " * " 06:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved/unstated guidelines issues[edit]

Modifying text external to the mainpage boarder[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • The discussion actually helped clarify how the AFMP project can change the Main Page design. Once the AFMP project comes to a consensus on a change to the Main Page design, we would submit that change to Main Page design discussions. If the Main Page design discussions reach a consensus to go forward with AFMP's proposed Main Page design change, someone from the Main Page design discussions either would make the change themselves or they would open up a new Main Page Redesign Project and submit the AFMP's proposed Main Page design change for a vote by all Wikipedians. The kinds of changes that are made by Main Page design discussions can be judge by reviewing Main Page history. In view of this Main Page history, AFMP whimsy changes would have to be made through a Main Page Redesign Project. The last Main Page Redesign Project involved the opinions of 943 participants over an 18-day poll/discussion. Another observation: Main Page design discussions serves as a buffer that would protect our political capital should AFMP consensus decide to go forward with a less than ideal change to Main Page design (e.g., they would save us from ourselves should there be a need). -- Jreferee 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying fixed mainpage text[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Adding to fixed mainpage text[edit]

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)[reply]
Dissent This consensus was substantially arrived at regarding one specific suggestion which was inappropriate for other reasons —Random8322007-01-25 15:59 UTC (01/25 10:59 EST)

Bending the mainpage rules[edit]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

Objection, the entire premise behind the rejection of my idea to include a link to a "normal" main page or to the "Tomorrow's Edition" page at the bottom is that the AFMP is really 100% normal and could easily be any other day. If this is done, that no longer applies.—Random8322007-01-25 15:53 UTC (01/25 10:53 EST)

You are slightly mis-characterising these objections. The reasoning is that as far as readers are concerned the April Fools' Main Page is no different. The process of making it is different (as this page proves) but that doesn't affect readers so there is no need to offer them an alternative based upon something they are not aware of. --Cherry blossom tree 14:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End it at noon[edit]

Consensus: The AFMP will not be replaced by a non-whimsical alternative midway through the day, but will remain up until rolling over to April 2nd —Random8322007-01-25 16:02 UTC (01/25 11:02 EST)

A dose of reality[edit]

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.

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)[reply]
Agreed. I'll help wherever I can. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nope - that's not going to work. The ground rules are that we can only tell the truth. No fake stuff is going to be allowed onto the front page. SteveBaker 23:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't know why you guys are bothering. So little can be changed, it's pointless. If every suggestion is going to be shot down, and the April Fools component going to be limited to funny DYK entries, where's the fun? Still, my respect for you guys who are trying to have some fun. Iorek85 23:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iorek85 is right. Is there any point in doing this? April Fools Day is a day of playing practical jokes, not bending the line of truth. Please count the number of suggestions that have been shot down will you? Perhaps the ones that haven't may be easier to count... Jaser 12345 14:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your position - and I agree that changing the Wikipedia logo into a whoopie cushion or something would be rather neat. But as I said in the title of this section - we need a dose of reality here. If you believe it will be possible to pursade those who maintain the front page to do this then I strongly recommend you head over to wherever they discuss front page design changes and present your case. Personally, I think you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding - but if you're so sure you can - then please try! I'm not against doing this (in principle) - it's just that I've dealt with these folks and I'm a realist and I don't want to get into protracted arguments with those folks. Perhaps your stamina and pursuasive powers are greater than mine. But for sure I don't want to waste everyone's time with something that I strongly believe won't come to fruition...but feel free to try. I would ask though that you obtain agreement in principle to change the front page design in some way before we fill up this list with suggestions that are really unlikely to come to fruition. SteveBaker 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm this. You can discuss it at Talk:Main page or wherever if you like, but you'd be wasting your time. There are enough people who would oppose such a move in principle that it has no chance of succeeding. --Cherry blossom tree 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split into SubPages[edit]

I've split out five sub-pages corresponding to the five areas of work we need to address.

There is a little menu at the top of each page to help navigation.

Please continue to use this page for general discussions - but take suggestions for each section into the appropriate sub-article. SteveBaker 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve. This will help the AFMP 2007 project move forward. -- Jreferee 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backup Mainpage[edit]

A secondary mainpage that plays April 1 completely straight, no different from March 31 or April 2, with a link at the bottom of the AFMP (I know the consensus on fixed text additions was not to do that, but the consensus was based in large part on a condemnation of one specific suggested addition as vandalism). Reasoning: It is traditional and expected for websites that have april fools jokes to make the "real" front page available by an alternative means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The discussion actually helped clarify how the AFMP project can change the Main Page design. Once the AFMP project comes to a consensus on a change to the Main Page design, we would submit that change to Main Page design discussions. If the Main Page design discussions reach a consensus to go forward with AFMP's proposed Main Page design change, someone from the Main Page design discussions either would make the change themselves or they would open up a new Main Page Redesign Project and submit the AFMP's proposed Main Page design change for a vote by all Wikipedians. The last Main Page Redesign Project involved the opinions of 943 participants over an 18-day poll/discussion. As for alternate Main Pages, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. -- Jreferee 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a "secondary mainpage that plays April 1 completely straight." The whole point of this project is to compile a page that captures the essence of April Fools' Day without compromising our usual standards. In other words, all of the content would be suitable (at least in spirit, even if not in letter) for display on any other date. —David Levy 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One issue that I saw brought up was - if we do this every year, "on this day"s that can't have a whimsical spin put on them will never be shown. How do we resolve this? —Random83220070125T040224UTC(01/24 23:02EST)
We can combine whimsical items with ordinary ones. It would be funnier that way, anyway. —David Levy 04:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think a "link to normal page" of some kind would be appropriate. How about adding this to the bottom of the main page: "Feel like sleeping through April Fools? click here." (and make sure everything's ready to go for april 2nd before the april 1st stuff rolls over) —Random83220070125T043234UTC(01/24 23:32EST)
That would actually make the page less normal and falsely imply that its content was phony. —David Levy 04:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's nothing (as it stands) that makes the April Fools page any different to the "normal" page unless you're looking for it. We could run the same page in September and it would still work. --Cherry blossom tree 13:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would imply that it's phony - just that some people might not want to read "whimsical / true" stuff on the main page. —Random8322007-01-25 14:27 UTC (01/25 09:27 EST)
So what? Some people didn't want to read about The History of saffron cultivation in Southwest Asia...but that was the FA for today. Should we have provided a 'backup' article for people who aren't interested in the details of crocus stigma? On every single day of the year our readers get an essentially random article (chosen just by whatever happened to be recently accepted as being of high enough standards) - a random set of Did-You-Know facts (chosen by whatever articles have been created recently) - a quasi-random list of things that happen to have happened on this day in the past and a picture that happens to be one that we recently decided looked quite nice. There is no concerted effort to be interesting and relevent on the front page...whatever is recently considered to be well written and well researched gets onto the front page...not matter how weird, how obscure or how irrelevent to our readers.
So long as our articles are true and up to the required standards, we aren't asking people to read anything that's any more or less relevent to them than our usual daily offerings. The only thing that's different is that we're trying to find articles that seem like they are April Fool jokes when you read about them on the main page. The actual articles will be just as true, just as well written - and about as relevent - as any other day. Good grief - we've had articles about Pokemon on the front page on a normal day. Surely we can pick an article on exploding toads without having to provide a different random article for the benefit of the humor-impaired. The key thing here is that we don't tell lies - we don't put in a hastily written or poorly researched article. It's just like any other day except that in the minds of our readers, it'll seem like we're putting up nonsense articles. SteveBaker 02:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, then, are we committed to not bending the rules? —Random8322007-01-26 14:13 UTC (01/26 09:13 EST)
I believe that only reffers to the timing. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this elsewhere but I'll repeat it: the difference is that as far as readers are concerned the April Fools' Main Page is no different. The process of making it is different (including slightly bending some rules) but that doesn't affect readers so there is no need to offer them an alternative based upon something they are not aware of. --Cherry blossom tree 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we committed to not bending the rules? Well, I think we'll ask the DYK folks to bend the rule that the article has to be less than 5 days old (I think we have tacit agreement from one of the DYK people to do that). I'd hope that we could get something into the ITN section - despite it not perhaps being the most newsworthy story of the day. We'll ask the FA and FP folks to preferentially choose our nominations for the front page on April 1st - bumping whatever other FA/FP was scheduled for that day. Beyond that, no - no bending of any rules, no change of format, no extra links, no backup page, no changing the Wikipedia into a whoopie cushion, no nothing. That seems to be the general consensus. But even if we agreed here to change something - it's not something that we can just decide to do - hundreds of other people would have to agree to it. That's a major deal - and I for one don't want to have to fight that battle. SteveBaker 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions[edit]

Not sure if these have already been suggested, or where to leave the suggestions (could someone move them to the right place, please?), but I found these recently, and thought of this project:

Not all of the above are in the category (and some shouldn't be anyway), or in the main article, so hopefully there is some material for new ideas there. Carcharoth 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about just the main page saying Wikipedia has been closed due to whatever. I'm mean it would be great to see how many ppl believe it, if that was possible. I mean something like that would make news if enought ppl thought it was closed down. You could say that the FBI or MI5 closed it due to leaking of information. :p Hpbenton 08:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the lack of will to change anything huge, I guess most would say a no to that. Jaser 12345 12:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Unusual Article[edit]

This is just a idea, but would it be too severe to pick the featured article from those at Wikipedia:Unusual articles? If there is a featured article there that hasn't been on the mainpage before, that would of course be gravy, but if not, pick the one closest to attaining that status, and optionally launching a drive to get it as close to it as possible, or maybe even over the threshold? And of course changing the heading to "Featured Unusual Article of the Day". Like I say, this is just an idea. What do you think? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you look at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article - we've been gradually looking at the Wikipedia:Unusual articless and picking suitable ones. Feel free to add more good ones to the list. SteveBaker 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could I suggest either Toilet-related injury or 0.9999999999999...., which always bewilders me- it also kind of funny. sorry that i've just dropped in here, b ut i thought i could help...

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." [Einstein] 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can better that: Tarquin_Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel :-)"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." [Einstein] 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate: Discussions about the featured article for April 1st are going on at: Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article...not here. We already have Toilet-related injury - but 0.99999999999... isn't an option because it's already been on the front page just a few months ago. The monster raving looney party candidate is a good suggestion. I think a lot of American Monty Python enthusiasts would be really surprised to find that there really is a Monster Raving Loony party in England and that they actually put up candidates for elections and actually come close to winning some of them! The only downside is that British people are very aware of this - so it wouldn't be anywhere near so surprising to them. But this is definitely the kind of thing we need. SteveBaker 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not do this![edit]

International users will be confused and Wikipedia is not the place for disinformation; it already has enough of it.-BiancaOfHell 15:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's an ordinary main page we're creating, just slightly funnier. We aren't misinforming anyone; everything will be true. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 18:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - that is the ENTIRE point of what we are talking about. We plan to put up articles that are 100% true, correct, properly researched, well written, etc. The only thing that is in any way abnormal is that we'll try to pick things that seem incredibly hard to believe. If you are someone who understands what April Fools day is all about then the hope is that you will naturally assume that this is a hoax page and that all the stories are fictional - but when you read them, it will slowly dawn on you that, no, this is all true. In a sense, they prank themselves. For these hypothetical "international readers" who don't understand April Fools day, they may never know that anything unusual was done - they'll just see some hard-to-believe things - but why would they assume they weren't true? I don't see any problem with what we are planning to do. SteveBaker 19:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is far worse than the proliferation of fan articles that pop up on the main page occasionally. People are going to go out of their minds when they read these unusual but true stories.-BiancaOfHell 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do this - it will again increase the backlog we have at Wikimedia OTRS. -- Jeandré, 2007-02-05t21:06z

Eh? OTRS? Opensource Ticket Request System?? I don't see a connection. Anyway - we've been doing this for several years...I think it's likely to happen again. SteveBaker 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lirpa Loof - Status report.[edit]

(Can you believe it? Lirpa Loof is actually a valid redirect!)

Over on the five sub-pages (see top of this page for links), we've been suggesting topic and debating their merits. We are now down to less than two months to do the work - so we have to start voting and making firm decisions.

So far:

  • On This Day - has a reasonable number of good candidates that need some clever rewording to make them sound less credible - but we're in good shape. We'll definitely have six surprising things that happened on April 1st that can be on the front page.
  • Did You Know - No shortage of great suggestions. I think its harder to choose between them - and we have to actually push some of them up from stubs into real articles - but this seems do-able so long as we don't leave it to the last minute.
  • In The News - Basically, there isn't much we can do about this until the last couple of days of March when we have to look really hard for bizarre news items.
  • Todays Featured Picture - Here we are in huge trouble. I don't see a single useable picture in the list of suggestions and nobody is talking about it on that page. We need help here folks! This is by far the most worrying thing.
  • Todays Featured Article - I think we have three strong candidates for which we can reach consensus. We need to pick one and start work on getting it up through peer review, WP:GAC and then WP:FAC in plenty of time so that if we fail to get it through FAC, we have time to make a second attempt - or go with a different choice. This is where the most work remains to be done - but I'm quietly confident that we can do it if we try.
  • Other things - I see lots of people making all sorts of suggestions to change the masthead, logo, to put navigation tricks into the interface and other wild stuff. I don't personally believe that any of these things are possible - but I don't see anyone even trying to get it through the various committees that decide these things. Well, it's "put up or shut up time". If you guys really think this can be done - you'd better get off your butts and start pushing the right buttons in these committees.

SteveBaker 14:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Alright, we got around 2 weeks left before April Fool's Day - Where are we at now, about the same? Cause we need to get serious and get this thing finito! JoeSmack Talk 15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not quite useless information"[edit]

The situation to be avoided is the above (references to left handed mugs (the hand which you have to hold it in to see the picture) pounds of feathers and pounds of gold (the former is heavier than the latter) and other things suitable for quizzes).

Possibility - change the date to the Julian Calendar equivalent.

Jackiespeel 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wat abot liek tish[edit]

What if you had the Main Page completely rewritten like some 11-year-old from AOL would do it?

style="width:56%;color:#000"|

OMG liek weclome 2 wikipdeia,
its liek teh fre3 insyklapedya taht liek any1 can eidt.
LOL, liek 6,816,010 articels in engilsh

|style="width:11%;font-size:95%;color:#000"|

|style="width:11%;font-size:95%"|

|style="width:11%;font-size:95%"|

|}

~ Flameviper 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I like it a lot. --Stevefarrell 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - whatever - it's irrelevent because it's never going to happen. If you think the people who vote on front page design changes are going to accept this, please feel free to ask them - but realistically, you don't stand any chance whatever of getting this to happen. SteveBaker 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't they accept it? Because they're lonely shut ins?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tee hee heeAndrew the science guy 02:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, but just for the top header section. It keeps information accessible (which is the whole point right?) and most of the main page will stay the same. I think this April Fools project just goes to show how Wikipedia is run by people, not communities. Jaser 12345 12:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be horrible. That doesn't show that we're run by people, it shows that we're juvenile. There are people who would get that joke, but most of our readers would not. I don't mind a good joke, but that's a bad joke. A horrible joke.

Pig Latin[edit]

We could go into articles and changed section of them into Pig Latin. This is like the "eelven-yaer-odl-sepehc" (eleven year old speech), only a little more readable and constant, and since some people don't know it, it's a joke to everyone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groch (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, please don't vandalise the encyclopedia. —David Levy 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but let's not be stearn-faced meinies either!

Only one concern. Young school children doing reserch may not use enugh disgression- this is an encyclopedia and is accepted as absolute fact- not a 

streach of truth.Andrew the science guy
02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Pollard[edit]

What about the Vicky Pollard article on the front page?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 18:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President Resigned[edit]

I am not sure if it would work, but report that the President Bush resigned. lol Tony16 07:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't. We post only true things which happen to be funny or unbelievable. —Dgiest c 07:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this is technically possible but... a joke on the jokers[edit]

As you know, non-admins cannot edit the mainpage, they see "View Source" instead of "Edit" at the top of the screen - it would be good, if for April Fools Day, the mainpage appeared to be editable - his would work like:

  • Anyone showing up to add jokes/vandalism would see "Edit" at the top of the screen
  • Any edits they made would be saved, but not to the real mainpage
  • The servers would use login info (or IPs for users who hadn't logged in) to serve the edited mainpage to the user who'd made that edit
  • Any users who hadn't edited it would see the real mainpage
  • 30 minutes after a user had made an edit, it would cease to show - this would reduce the chances of a shared-IP user seeing a vandalised mainpage

I like ths idea as it would play a joke on those who would play a joke on Wikipedia - also if vandals think they can vandalise the main page, they may not vandalise othr articles. Cheers, Davidprior 14:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. Violask81976 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Short of making custom changes to the MediaWiki software (not gonna happen), the only way I can think of doing this is by replacing the main page with a version using some complex ParserFunctions which transclude a shadow main page, or a user-custom page if available. The problem with this is everyone who "edited" the main page would create a separate copy in their user space which would need to be cleaned up later. Lots of work, huge potential downside. —Dgiest c 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this is probably a bad idea due to the amount of cleanup that would be required, but it is techinically possible; MediaWiki:monobook.js could be changes to change the 'view source' link to an 'edit' link, using the InputBox extension preloading code (the sort of thing used in the AfD process) to automatically generate the code for a page in the editor's userspace identical to the Main Page; script could also be used to fake the 'Editing Main Page' title. The view of the mainpage would switch back to normal if they returned to en.wikipedia.org, or clicked on a 'Main page' link or the logo, but that would be less of a problem. The main problem, which is what invalidates the proposal, is that we'd end up with a large number of speedy-worthy pages in userspace (and it would take a while to delete them unless an adminbot or devscript was used, and April Fool's Day is not major enough to use hefty processes like this.) --ais523 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really a joke, but quite creative nonetheless[edit]

Without having any jokes/whimsy on the mainpage, rewrite it without the use of the letter e , as per A Void (novel). Of course the work Wikipedia contains an e, but perhaps for this day, it could be replaced by Wikipædia (cheating, I know...). Tis use of Constrained writing would even translate to the other languages' wikipedias (although in some cases, e is not the most common letter, so the eswiki mainpage could be written without the letter a for example). Anyway, just an idea...Davidprior 14:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to work on this. Is an FA around that I could try writing a summary for? ("A Bulbasaur is a fictional animal in a popular bunch of trading cards...", or "Pokémon" if é was okay.) I don't want to brag, but I think this paragraph shows that I could do this sort of lipogram.--Lkjhgfdsa 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change "On this Day..." calendar[edit]

All the links would still be working, but a calendar other than the Gregorian could be used AxiomShell 10:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooh... I like! Is there time? Lenoxus " * " 06:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for featured article[edit]

Please could everyone note that a straight vote is taking place for which article is chosen for the featured article as consensus in discussion couldn't be reached. Everyones vote is welcome, and it takes place here RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the news[edit]

Fark.com usually has strange news stories that could be used for the In the news section. --PiMaster3 talk 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day - my humble opinion[edit]

I realise that a consensus appears to have already been reached regarding April Fools Day this year, but I felt compelled to add my opinion. Two years ago, with the "Britannica takes over Wikipedia" hoax, we gained attention on other websites. A friend of mine found it amusing enough to forward me the article - it was the first time I'd actually been to Wikipedia (although I'd heard of it previously). I read the hoax with intrigue, and went on to look up articles on everything else I could think of, eventually starting to edit, and later becoming an administrator.

It somewhat disappoints me that consensus now appears to have been "reached" which all but rules out practical jokes such as this appearing on Wikipedia on future April Fools days. I realise that Wikipedia is an encylcopedia, and as such strives for accuracy and correct information - and rightly so. However, I think it's a real shame we can't be a little more light hearted about the situation - even respected newspapers, who on any other day would pride themselves on being factually accurate, frequently publish hoax articles for comedic value on April Fools Day. Spaghetti trees were an April Fools joke introduced by Panorama - on any other occasion a factual, current affairs documentary series.

I appreciate that cultural differences may mean that not all of our users make a celebration of April Fools Day. However, since this is the English language Wikipedia, I would presume that the vast majority of them would do. For those that aren't interested in more of a jokey sentiment for one day - surely that's tough. Afterall, not all of us are interested in Botany but that's no reason for Banksia integrifolia not to be today's featured article. Not all of use are interested in major sporting events, but again, that's no reason for them not be included in "In the news...".

Don't get me wrong - I'm not encouraging introducing random acts of vandalism, or changes that could overly annoy people making use of our excellent resource. I do, however, think that dispensation from normal policies, and suggestions to introduce changes more April-fools like in nature than a "strange but true" featured article, set of news items, did you know facts etc... exactly like last year... should be given more consideration. Far from damaging our reputation, I think the right joke could portray Wikipedia in a good light - gain us attention, and possibly encourage others to join our "community". └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon viewing Wikipedia's current Alexa statistics, do you honestly believe that we need to engage in such tomfoolery to gain attention?
I reject the argument that we should do something because "everyone else does it." ("If everyone else were jumping off a bridge...") In fact, I view this as a compelling reason to rise above the nonsense. 1 April is a day on which much of the Internet is more or less broken, and we should embrace our responsibility to inject some sanity into the day. People interested in viewing hoaxes will have plenty of other websites to visit. —David Levy 20:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't need the attention, but my point was it certainly doesn't do us any harm. Don't take this personally, but your opinion above (which seems to be the current perceived consensus) makes the Wikipedia community sound like a bunch of killjoys. I'm afraid I don't count that as a good thing (perhaps you do...) - and I think it portrays us in a bad light. I'm afraid it's not a characteristic I could be proud of about the project, I'd rather we could lighten up and have some fun. But hey... this is an encyclopedia and we're beyond that, right? Honestly, what harm would it do? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean...apart from leading people to perceive Wikipedia has an unreliable joke? Maveric149 did a good job addressing this point last year. But even setting aside external perceptions, it's been established in previous discussions that many Wikipedians despise this nonsense.
Your choice of words ("killjoys") doesn't surprise me; last year, I noted that "anyone who opposes vandalism on 1 April is portrayed as a humorless killjoy." And yes, what you suggest is vandalism, unless you can find (or successfully enact) a "1 April" exception somewhere in policy. —David Levy 01:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People won't perceive Wikipedia as an unreliable joke any more than they perceive the BBC, the IETF, Discover magazine, or (apart from those who think they are anyway, who would probably think the same of Wikipedia) The Guardian or NPR, as unreliable jokes. Not to mention every website on the entire internets. --Random832 12:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the overwhelming majority of people expect some kind of a joke on websites on April Fool's Day. They won't perceive or conclude that Wikipedia as a joke if the front page is an April Fool's day joke. Vandalism will run rampant on Wikipedia that day no matter what is on the front page. David Levy seems to be the major opponent of an April Fool's tomfoolery. Google and Yahoo each run a April Fool's Day joke each year, and it doesn't hurt their credibility at all. I see no reason why Wikipedia would be any different. Royalbroil T : C 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Did either of you (Random832 or Royalbroil) bother to read Maveric149's explanation of why people view Wikipedia differently than they view other information sources?
2. The overwhelming majority of people? Again, April Fools' Day is not a worldwide observance.
3. The fact that "vandalism will run rampant on Wikipedia that day" is not a valid reason to condone and encourage such behavior by having sysops vandalise the main page.
4. No, I am not "the" major opponent. Most people simply ignore these suggestions. —David Levy 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read Maveric149's opinion before commenting, and I stated with my opinion and observations. Stating that a special mainpage would cause sysops to "vandalise the main page" is David's opinion which I do not share. The detractors appear to have significantly toned down the process, so it appears that a compromise has been reached, so this discussion appears to be mute. Royalbroil T : C 05:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? For the second consecutive year, I'm participating in the preparation of special main page content for 1 April. I was referring to the proposed insertion of actual hoaxes. That would be vandalism (not merely the encouragement of vandalism, but vandalism in and of itself).
Incidentally, you meant "moot," not "mute." —David Levy 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting me, as I did indeed mean "moot" not "mute". I did not participate in last years 1 April discussion, so I am unfamiliar with what was discussed last year. Royalbroil T : C 05:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours, or longer?[edit]

It seems to me that the AFMP 2007 period should probably be rather longer than 24 hours, so that any reader logging in at any April 1 local time could be let in on the joke.--Pharos 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While having appropriately themed material available for everyone during their local April 1 is an admirable goal, from a logistical standpoint this would create too large a work load to realistically accomplish. Due to the technical implementation, most of the Main page automatically changes over at 24:00 each day. To make this suggestion work would then require two to three times the material be available to meet the needs of the increased time frame (three appropriate Featured articles and sets of On this day material while Did you know would require 48 hours worth of themed material). Given the difficulty in accumulating 24 hours of material for the Main page, it seems unlikely that a multi-day April fools is realistic at this time. --Allen3 talk 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Mathematics' ---> 'Maths'[edit]

Anyone opposed to me changing the 'Mathematics' wording on the mainpage header to 'Maths'. Even though the word 'maths' has its technical grammatical place, I hear maths thrown around a lot jokingly as it sounds incorrect. JoeSmack Talk 15:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engrish[edit]

Can we run all the Main Page content through Babelfish or manually edit it to produce Engrish? Everything would be just as factual but would suffer from horrible grammar. Noclip 01:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm have fears that would not well go over, especially as some some many would might say that bad grammars are facto ipso "false". Lenoxus " * " 06:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilsports[edit]

People who think Wikipedia should be a encyclopedia and not a silly site confusing readers like Slashdot or Uncyclopedia.

Portals[edit]

Why don't we list some of the more interesting portals at the top of the main page. Like: Beer, Nudity, Middle Earth, Star Wars, etc. Those are all real portals and much funnier than Arts and Biography. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! The utility of these portals would still be available at Wikipedia:Browse. Strong support. Lenoxus " * " 06:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded [sic], although we should refrain from using sexually explicit, or other wise not work-safe content on the front page. --antilivedT | C | G 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But it would definitely be a fun challenge to find the most inherently amusing (but still useful) categories here.(We wouldn't actually have to make new portals, would we? That kinda sounds like work.) Lenoxus " * "
Okay, I've changed the portals to include: Anarchism, Beer, Cats, Middle-earth, Mythology, Nintendo, Sharks, and Rugby. All are real portals, with the link to the list of portals still intact. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment: could "Mythology" be changed to something else, to avoid the repetition with "Middle-Earth"? Lenoxus " * " 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with "Disasters." Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sweetness. Lenoxus " * " 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also replaced middle-earth now with Oz, as middle-earth doesn't fit right on an 800x600 monitor (it broke into 2 lines) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: extra weight should be given towards Featured Portals, so as to showcase some of our best work. --69.142.99.187 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are they, if not on that (presumably broken) link? Lenoxus " * " 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decapitalise. Works most times. Wikipedia:Featured portals. Carcharoth 11:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most interesting one there appears to be Portal:Numismatics. Carcharoth 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been ratted out[edit]

Someone found this page!!! [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Placebo Effect (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh no! Quick, the shield! __earth (Talk) 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
INDEED! commence page wipe! *Vwamp* *Vwamp* what should we do? Can non - registered users even SEE this page? Avatar of Nothing 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing[reply]
Anyone can see this page. They must have noticed the announcement on the community Bulletin Board in February and March. The Placebo Effect 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's hilarious! It must have been a slow news day at The Guardian. Some poor soul was tasked with writing an April Fools "news item", I guess. Maybe we should try disinformation next year, and make that disinformation the real April Fool... Carcharoth 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good article, as it portrays what it's like being a wikipedian. Andjam 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the paper or right above us? anyways, ABOVE is good, I haven't seen the paper, so I wouldn't know about that. The disinformation would be funny only if someone spread it around the net, and even then, I don't think it would be funny to anyone except us... hmmm, maybe we should hide it next year, no? Avatar of Nothing 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing[reply]
Quote:

They hope that if the site acknowledges the occasion, then visitors will be less inclined to mess it up. But it's unlikely that their joke will be funny enough to stop pranksters.

I find that line very insulting. Not funny enough? WE DID GREAT! What do they think we are? A joke book? · AO Talk 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, Ms. Kleeman was going on a deadline. A better rough equivalent to what she's trying to get at with "funny enough" might be something like "It's unlikely that their joke will sufficiently resemble the sheer inanity of most vandalism…" or that it would otherwise be an apparent enough outright violation of Wikipedia policies to make "pranksters" realize there was nothing left for them to do. The only way to actually curb vandalism with "pranking" would be to beat trolls at their own game and invite the friends of gays over beforehand, which would kind of defeat the whole purpose… Lenoxus " * " 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be OK so far...[edit]

Well, we have a featured article, a featured picture, and the 'On this day' feature all updated with April Fools content. Don't think the 'In the News' or 'Did you know?' bits have been updated yet. Carcharoth 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, people. Need to get started earlier next year. Special mention to the writer of George Washington (inventor), whose name eludes me at the moment. Bensmith53 09:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pharos, I believe. Carcharoth 13:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Next Year?[edit]

So when's AFMP 2008 going to get off the blocks? Jaser 12345 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might be best spending the next 10 months writing the encyclopedia, instead of planning the next April Fools Day page... Carcharoth 22:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. · AO Talk 12:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
April Fools! Though I don't quite know how... Jaser 12345 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just split my sides laughing. Carcharoth 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived?[edit]

The "Project Page" seems to be just a redirect to this talk page. I'd like to see what the proposed page was (since I was too busy to Wiki / had a life that day), is there any way of seeing that easily? (Short of circumventing the redirect and going into "history") For that matter, is there a way of seeing the main page for any day as it appeared that day? --Canuckguy 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened to the front page of this project, but as for your other questions, I'll repeat what I wrote elsewhere.
These links will do in the absence of Main Page/Yesterday... (though I thought someone showing yesterday's main page did exists for those in different timezones - ah, here we are Main Page alternative (yesterday) - but that doesn't help for the ITN and DYK stuff, which is updated in a single template). Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2007; the DYK entries for 1 April, Template:POTD/2007-04-01 (picture of the day), the ITN entries for 1 April and finally, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 1.
Hope that helps. Carcharoth 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:April_Fools%27_Main_Page/Archive_2007&oldid=1095410743"