Talk:Main Page/Archive 63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wanted Indian Internet workers. Earn Rs.2000 daily from internet.

Dear Friends,

Are you interested to make Rs.20,000 to Rs.1,20,000 A Day ? This is not a get rich quick scheme. This is a legal opportunity to make good money when you do it part time. This opportunity is a proven way to make Rs.20,000 to Rs.1,20,000 A Day . There are already 3,00,000 people around the world grabbed this opportunity and making tons of money every month. If you are interested to know more about this opportunity, visit http://www.earnparttimejobs.com/index.php?id=805838


I got Cheque of Rs.10, 000 every month. Register free here: http://www.earnparttimejobs.com/index.php?id=805838


Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 70


Contents

Britannica home page

Did Britanica come up with the idea of featuring an article on their main page before us? The Wayback Machine doesn't show this in 2004. Check out their main page now - they have featured articles! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but their featured article changes every few seconds. It's more like our Featured content portal which gives a different featured article every minute.-gadfium 03:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the incidentalism in art can be found here? Meta wikipedians have gone mad and removed it. Weird. Oh, yes, tha people have spoken.

please correct text for Noahs Ark

The text on main page has: "that any perceived inadequacies can be rationally explained." That is poor English. Please make it "can be explained rationally". Thanks.

Either way is correct English.
But have different meanings - the first is an explanation which is rational; the second where the explanation (whether rational or not) is given in a unrelevent subject. Bazza 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Bazza's correct. I'm a professional copy-editor. Zachkchk 14:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Embarrasing

Question unrelated to MainPage. Moved to talkpage of the Wikipedian who asked the question. -- PFHLai 13:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

More questions unrelated to MainPage

Hello, I need to know who invented the Lines of Magnetic forces, Roberval's balance and the cyanometer. Please help me with this. Thank you. —This unsigned comment was added by 194.109.111.134 (talkcontribs) 10:14, 2006 March 28 (UTC).

This sort of question will receive a proper response at the Reference Desk. Nuge | talk 10:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What about Katie being pregnant?

Misspelling

In the caption for the featured picture, "Austalia" should be "Australia". Thanks, Graham talk 11:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'r' is no longer missing. Thanks for pointing that out. -- PFHLai 13:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

News Photo

On the news section of the main page, there is a picture of Moussaui related to the third story listed on the page, however, the picture appears to the right of a bullet mentioning the Christian convert in Afghanistan. The picture should be taken down to avoid confusion. Please remove this entry when the error has been fixed.

March 28, 2006

—This unsigned comment was added by 71.35.98.183 (talkcontribs) 15:12, 2006 March 28 (UTC).

I'm going to faint...

You put Moussaoui next to released...

[swoon]

-User:VKokielov

It says "(pictured)" on the third news item. -- PFHLai 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
News items are listed chronologically. We currently do not have a free image for the first two items. --PFHLai 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely there's a way to put there the image next to the text it goes with, same as in a regular article. No? —JerryFriedman 18:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, I thought that the pictured guy was Abdul Rahman...the frighteningly knowledgeable web design Wikipedians should know what to do.Osbus 18:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but the problem is that the image is not of Zacarias Moussaoui, and yet it claims that Zacarias Moussaoui is "(pictured)" LassiLantar 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark Correction

If you look over here[1], you'll see that in the Orthodox Jewish view, Moses did not author the story of the Ark, rather, God did. Please correct this. Thank you! --aishel 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In the News error.

Moussaoui continues to be listed as (pictured) despite the fact that the French riots and now Kadima are pictured. -209.115.232.94 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is true that God wrote the story of Noah, but God spoke to Noah to write it down on paper.

another misspelling

In the news item about the French protests, "protestors" should be "protesters" (per www.dict.org). (I mentioned this in Template_talk:In the news but that doesn't seem to get acted on very much.) Phr 20:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Flags

why is there always a flag in the news section of the main page? Can we please get a little more creative with the pictures... --T-rex 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is normally a distinct lack of images relevant to current events and use of fair use images on the main page is deprecated. Flags are in the public domain, so end up being slapped up if nothing else can be found. If you actually have found a relevant image for an ITN that is either public domain or CC-by-SA, then by all means suggest it. - BanyanTree 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope the picture of Kadima leader Ehud Olmert now on ITN is more appealing. -- PFHLai 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I found many just like this while surfing the net. User:Froggy

Mention of Moses in Noah's Ark

Now the mistake is even worse. The article as it is on the front page states that Moses was without a doubt the writer of the Bible. This is absolutly not true! There are many other views, including that of Orthodox Judaism that God is the writer. Can this please be reflected so we can remain fair and balanced? It can read: Nevertheless, many Orthodox Jews and traditional Christians reject this analysis, holding that the Ark story is true, that it has a single author, and that any perceived inadequacies can be rationally explained.

Misspelling in today's featured picture (Kiritimati)

Please correct the spelling of "Chistmas" to "Christmas." Thanks, Rewster 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Please do correct the spelling. It is not spelled that way in the article! Thank you. 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Voter Turnout

You compare the voter turnout of US to Australia in the preview here, but it is compared to Malta in the article, which seems more likely to be correct, given that in Australia voting is compulsary, so voter turnout is not affected by any 'cultural' values.

Just because its compulsory doesn't mean people are forced to vote. Very very few (if any) councils enforce the fine for not voting. In the poorer areas there is alot less than 95% turnout.


Slightly Odd

When I move my mouse over the "My Watchlist, My Contributions, My Preferences" bar at the top of the page it jumps from the top right corner to the top left. This only happens on the frontpage. Has some joker included some code to do this or is there something wrong on my end? It's fairly harmless, but we don't want pranks getting out of hand. Quarkstorm 08:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it was has stopped. Quarkstorm 09:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

ITN correction

Kadima did not "win" the Israeli election. Perhaps it should be changed to "wins a plurality of votes and seats"? Batmanand | Talk 10:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "win". I find "win" regarding elections fairly self-explanatory - more so than "wins a plurality of votes and seats", whatever that means. Anyway, [BBC News] says he "won". Bazza 12:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[Apologies - I inadvertantly changed your comment - reverted.] Bazza 12:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A plurality is the biggest share of the vote, if that share is under 50%. A "win" has implications (at least to me) of a majority of either the vote or the number of seats in the parliament. What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 12:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
"Win" itself is oversimplification. It implies a winner-take-all system, which is not the case. I agree with Batmanand above.  Cdcon  15:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Just added plurality to that line on ITN. Thanks for pointing that out. -- PFHLai 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but you cannot "win plurality". Can you change the wording to "wins a plurality"? Thanks! Batmanand | Talk 19:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Just added the 'a'. Thanks. -- PFHLai 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

About eclipse

I think the article should have link to Solar eclipse of 2006-Mar-29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.197.129.54 (talkcontribs)

- I agree, so... Done. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 12:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Eclipse mentioned twice

... In "In the news" and "On this day..." - seems a bit redundant! Shouldn't "On this day" feature only events from previous years, anyway? — SteveRwanda 12:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, 'On this day' (OTD) also lists holidays, time of equinox ... Whoever put the eclipse on ITN didn't take it off OTD. I was just about to remove it from OTD, after cleaning up ITN a bit, and got beaten to it by a fellow admin by a few minutes. .... -- PFHLai 17:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pic of the Day

Shouldn't the link on the PoTD be nuclear testing not just nuclear weapons? QmunkE 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Total solar eclipse may be observed in Eastern Brazil (...)

I live in Eastern Brazil and the shadow didn't reach us at all. The appropriate would be Northeastern Brazil. --Kripkenstein 13:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the eclipsde mentioned twice? Both in ITN and On this day Borisblue 14:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Try asking this question on Template Talk:In the news. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 14:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
See above #Eclipse mentioned twice. -- PFHLai 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the solar eclipse animation

There are serious copyright concerns with the solar eclipse image so it should be immediately removed from the main page. NASA policy states that media is uncopyrighted unless copyright is stated and on this animation copyright is clearly stated so it cannot even be used not to mention being on the front page. The image should be immediately taken off the front page and should be listed for deletion if not immediately be deleted due to it being a copyvio. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 15:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Eek! I've removed it from ITN already. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fix Redirect

The redirect for the solar eclipse article needs to be fixed. It currently goes to Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29, but it should go to Solar eclipse on 29 March 2006. joturner 04:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Pepsidrinka 05:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Undeserving POTD

This picture doesn't deserve to be Featured. The sunlight areas are burnt out and the color scheme does a bad job of portraying the livliness of a rainforest. If the picture had been taken in a rain, it would have been feature material, but currently it's rather unattractive, Loom91 08:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your aesthetic judgement would be best expressed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. There should be an archive of the vote on how this photo got featured somewhere and if, after reading it, you think it should be delisted, please follow the instructions for delisting at the bottom of the candidates page. - BanyanTree 14:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The candidacy is archived here. Redquark 19:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"future President of the United States Herbert Hoover"

Surely "future" is a mistake.--128.139.226.36 09:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"future" was not exactly a mistake - the word is used to let the reader know that the person was not yet President by the time he married. I do understand that using "future" in that context is grammatically correct, but doesn't sound correct when viewed commonsensically. --Gurubrahma 13:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
what? if anything, it's incorrect now. No "former president" was married at the Royal Presidio Chapel. The person who was married there was the then-future president Hoover. Or else drop the president, and just say "Herbert Hoover was married". It's certainly worse now for the 'correction'. dab () 13:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Re-fixed to "...that, before he was President of the United States, Herbert Hoover was married at the Royal Presidio Chapel in Monterey, California?" - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It'd Make a good April Fools joke though. -Dhodges 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
That it would! *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

All hail Hoover, our Once and Future President. Raul654 03:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs encyclopedia

wikipedia has a mian page 71.52.72.24 22:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a page on Mian? I haven't seen that guy since Nam! I've always wondered what he's been up to.Agent Aquamarine
Hehe, but any way this doesn't really have anything to do with the main page.--Dp462090 | Talk | Flag of the United States.svg 01:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Wiki does indeed have an article on Mian... (from a "can't be bothered to sign-in" Kel-nage) 86.135.235.177 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Britannica and Encarta have main pages, if you go on their websites. -- Zanimum 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It might have been nice to write Britannica and Encarta rather than Britannica and Encarta. You know, so that we actually could go to their websites, as you suggest. He he.

Yes, but Wikipedia is free, and more up to date.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | Flag of the United States.svg 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And full of POV. --JohnO 15:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is acknowledged and can be read around in an informative way. On the other hand Britannica and Encarta stick strictly to promoting the orthodoxies of liberal American academics while pretending to be unbiased. 62.31.55.223 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox liberals? Is this oxymoron your attempt at contributing to the ridiculous April Fools drivel the encyclopaedia is going through at the moment? --JohnO 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the ridiculous anti-April Fool's Day drivel, don't you? --Celestianpower háblame 12:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
No. --JohnO 14:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

POTD: Alaska wild berries

The raspberries link in the text box on Today's featured picture is actually to a disambiguation page. I suspect raspberry is the correct link. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. While I was at it, I wikified Innoko National Wildlife Refuge as I doubt it gets much main page exposure and it seemed wrong to deny it its moment in the sun. :) Cheers, BanyanTree 02:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

From Did You Know

"that the term Cicisbei refers to legal and generally respected companions..." Shouldn't that be something like "that Cicisbei were legal and generally respected companions..."? The article isn't about the term itself, after all. Hibbleton 10:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This item is no longer on MainPage. -- PFHLai 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

chat

i think wikipedia should have chat rooms —This unsigned comment was added by Richlandbilly (talkcontribs) 15:34, 2006 March 31 (UTC).

Are you paying the bills ? Try IRC instead. -- PFHLai 16:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We just got mentioned as a question on The Weakest Link! Yay! 88.144.9.204 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? What question was this? And more importantly, was the answer correct? -- Gurch 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a random comment.

Today's featured picture [31 Mar 2006]

This section begins with:

A selection of Alaskan wild berries from Innoko National Wildlife Refuge.

which is not a complete sentence. It should probably be reworded to be a bit less jarring. — orioneight (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did a substantial rewrite. I double-check for grammar and readability would be much appreciated. Thanks, BanyanTree 19:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Much more readable now. Thank you. — orioneight (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Adjective for New Zealand = New Zealand

The today in history section says "New Zealander inventor Richard Pearse..." either "New Zealander Richard Pearse..." or "New Zealand inventor Richard Pearse" dmcg026 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Did you know - typo - how to fix

Could someone fix the type "that the there were" in the bit about the Year of the Six Emperors. Where is the 'right' place to mention typos and other embarrassments, in the pages subsidiary to the main page? Shenme 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say here would be the place to mention it. I can't fix this though, at least not yet. Prodego talk 21:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Trolling for votes? Shame! Smiley.png Matt Yeager (Talk?) 06:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

April Fools Day

As the link seems to have moved.

Suggestion for another time/equivalents.

Links to Lord of Misrule and suchlike - also, a list of possible future Wiki developments such as Vandalopedia and Wikigovernment (mentioned variously on BJAODN lists).

Jackiespeel 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing yet? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The top news item on ITN (Thai newspaper) is the joke, right? -- 199.71.174.100 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It was there yesterday, so I don't think so. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Such a trivial thing as the top news item on ITN for so long ?!?! That must be a bad joke. Maybe someone should update the space item and mention that the shuttle crew has reached the International Space Station. -- 199.71.174.100 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbered headings redux

I see that someone has changed the "Welcome to Wikipedia" text into a heading. Unfortunately, that turns into "1 Welcome to Wikipedia" if numbered headings are turned on. æle  2006-03-31t22:24z

To an admin

Could someone put this up? See Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page for more information. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Though it's understandable as to why we should change the page to look this way, and I really don't mind if it stays this way or not, I'm still compelled to ask: Should we completely ignore news and historical events that occurs/occured today just for the sake April Fools? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think ignoring the news might be too much, and the regular in the news template could be used. But ignoring the historical events that happened on this day - not so important. It's not like today's December 7th or something. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The April Fool's page is at least mostly factual. (I'm not sure about "In the news", but I think everything else is true) - however, I was reverted, so I'm not touching it again. – ABCDe 01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, you transcluded the development page (which was intended as an example), and you did so without protecting it (thereby exposing the main page to all forms of potential vandalism)! Secondly, it appears as though no one bothered to make any sort of advance arrangements for this content to be used, so it probably is too late (given the degree of discussion that this should have entailed). —David Levy 01:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I do notice that it is mostly true, but April Fools is supposed to be a day of tricks, not wacky random facts. It would be more in the spirit to add something like "Osama Bin Laden Captured" and then have that link to the April Fools Day or Practical Joke article, but maybe not something so controversial that can get the wikipedia haters on our case. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess that was sort of the point - that something like "Osama bin Laden Captured" would basically be a lie - the New York Times wouldn't publish such an article on April 1 (unless it happened!). To quote the original proposal - "Wikipedia should not be so formal and humourless that it cannot show some whimsy in how it presents itself to its readers." Maybe keep the same in the news template (the April's Fools news content was added very late compared to the rest of the stuff, which was much-edited) but keep the rest. That "Sigh" of the reversion is so humorless. Sigh. ;) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should try a poll while it's still early in the day GMT? See what others think. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
How about this... People would be expected April Fools' tricks today. But they wait and wait and wait, and nothing happens. At the end of the day, they'd be puzzled to no end, having expected an April Fools' mainpage, but seeing none. So the joke is now on them! April Fools! -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Could do that, definitely... But a poll where? Here? Maybe this should have been taken care of previously - but then again, if it had been done previously, it would have been on that talk page, which would have gotten a nonrandom sample... So, sure, let's do a poll. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Never done a poll myself, and this could take a while. Also, I'm assuming it's already the end of April Fool's Day in many parts of the world, and on top of that, not many places (Latin America for example) celebrate a Fool's day today. I agree this should've been done earlier. I think all we can do now is come up with a clever way to trick people, if any; or do what Miborovsky says. Also, mentioning our intentions on talk:main page is counter-productive, don't you think? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much so. :) Then again, when I first asked to put the page up, it didn't say what it was about except in a link... So it could have just been slipped onto the main page... As to the time, April 1 hasn't yet begun in any of the US or Canada - but has well begun in England and is winding down in much of the rest of the world... So it does seem to be too late. Miborovsky's idea does seem pretty good, though - very meta... ;) zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It is 5:38 pm in Australia (I think thats's +10 hours to GMT), this means it's probably 7:30 or so in the nations nearest to the International Date Line. So this gives you around 3-4 hours to accomodate for those nations and let them see something on April Fools Day. Is that enough time? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What the

How on Earth did user:208.96.80.103 get to [edit/vandalize/whatever] the Main Page?! 68.39.174.238 02:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • He must have slipped in through a crack in the Web... No idea, actually, but I find it pretty amusing... :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
An admin thought it would be funny to unprotect the mainpage. Your mileage may vary. -Splashtalk 02:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one who feels that this was an incredibly immature and irresponsible act on Drini's part? —David Levy 02:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I was keeping an eye on the main page, it's not like I unprotected and went out for a coffee. -- ( drini's page ) 02:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
And you still don't understand the damage that would have been done to the site's reputation if the main page had been transformed into a hard-core pornography showcase or a racist manifesto for even a fraction of a minute?
I've repeatedly asked you what you hoped to accomplish, and you've sarcastically replied that you're "scrum" bent on "the ultimate destruction and doom of wikipedia." Can I please have a serious response? This is not a laughing matter. —David Levy 03:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* what is laughing matter or not depends on the viewpoint. And I tried to pull a small joke without being reckless, as many people do. I kept watching, but our great RC team beat me to fix that vandalism (if anyone doens't know, someone changed 280px to 281px) and you claim it could have been worse, yes, main page could have been vandalized for two seconds, I plead guilty, but is we allowing vandalism on featured articles (which get tons of visitors as well ) meaning we don't care about wikipedia reputation! FA has even been vandalized for more than 5 seconds straigh (my god!) -- ( drini's page ) 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to describe the favorable outcome that could have resulted. One unfavorable outcome would have been for over-the-top vandalism to occur. Even if reverted within mere seconds, this would have remained in the revision history. It eventually would have been excised, but not before evidence (screen captures, etc.) had been saved, thereby fueling countless humiliating Internet articles injurious to the reputation of Wikipedia ("that so-called encyclopedia that allowed its main page to be turned into a smut gallery / Nazi diatribe on April Fool's Day"). Perhaps this would have been acceptable to you, but I disagree. I actually believe that the trust placed in an administrator by the community is not to be abused for the sake of a prank. —David Levy 03:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
A visitor realizing he arrived to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, getting interested and eventually becoming a feature article writer. 03:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Drini (talkcontribs) .
No offense, but were you actually able to type the above with a straight face? (I'm serious.) —David Levy 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You asked for a possible good outcome. That's not impossible, so it's a possible good outcome. *shrug* -- ( drini's page ) 03:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I zink vee are getting a leetle bit over, ow-you-say? 'eated? about zis. It appened, and it vas feexed, and it is no lonker a problem. Plus, you ave forked zis discussion all over ze place. -Splashtalk 03:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing over on Drini's page but I keep getting an edit conflict message. It's been fixed, very few people noticed it, no one else seems to mind, and nothing serious materialized. It was a joke, and nothing more. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
At this point, what primarily concerns me is the fact that Drini has expressed no regret, still believes this to have been a good idea, and might very well do this again. —David Levy 03:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I pledge not doing it again -- ( drini's page ) 03:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I sincerely hope that this promise extends to your overall responsibilities as a Wikipedia sysop. —David Levy 04:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I expected today to be full of childish pranks...

...but I didn't expect to see them coming from respected admins. It truly saddens me to see the main page repeatedly vandalized. This is an encyclopedia 365 days per year (366 in leap years), and it's unfortunate that some of you would prefer to transform it into a joke website. I also hate the fact that I can't even post this complaint without being portrayed as a humorless killjoy. —David Levy 05:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I and thousands of others support you David. Humour is subjective, and i find none of today's "pranks" amusing, especially in a worldwide encyclopedia endeavour. --Quiddity 19:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

To all admins: Please keep the April Foolery out of the article namespace (this includes the main page). Thanks. -- The Management.

IF you have an april fool's joke rumor has it that Jaranda is keeping a page full of em so send it over to him and keep it only in the userspace. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Starts distributing funny bones to those who lack them. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, I hate the fact that anyone who opposes vandalism on 1 April is portrayed as a humorless killjoy. —David Levy 06:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It clearly wasn't a personal attack. —David Levy 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur; not a personal attack. But I must say it is appalling that admins are participating in quite a bit of this nonsense. And unprotecting the main page? This is a definite no. I understand that the admins want to be funny, but April Fools' Day is not an excuse to ignore responsibilities. Unfortunately, however, there is so much red tape involved when getting admins censured for actions (which may be why so many are participating in the mayhem). joturner 06:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just the fact that you had a discussion over whether or not my attempt to lighten the situation was a personal attack seriously concerns me. Apparently I was wrong -- if you're unable to understand that April Fools means a lot to some people, some of which may actually be *gasp* admins as well and that even the most serious can briefly put aside their briefs and stand naked -- er, well ok, so people try to let their hair down for one day. Can we think of it more as stress relief than people honestly shirking their responsibilities? I prescribe at least one full viewing of Monty Python and the Holy Grail for each of you, then, when you have mananged to cut down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring, come back and try to overlook those people running around like loons. Or hey, go have a fun day and come back for the other 364 days of the year when things aren't quite so crazy. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 08:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said, sir. --Celestianpower háblame 08:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you able to understand that this encyclopedia means a lot to some people, some of whom may actually be *gasp* attempting to learn factual information today, and that April Fool's Day is not a worldwide, universally observed custom? —David Levy 14:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ----

well, if you think wikipedia is any less of an encyclopedia for a few funny links on its mainpage, you are, I am sorry to say, a humourless killjoy. Its not like Wikipedia has nuclear warheads attached to it, or some major economy, so even if a joke goes amiss it's not the end of the world. If it appals or saddens you, just look the other way for a bit, alright? dab () 13:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No. I will not look the other way while people vandalize the encyclopedia (simply because they believe that their calendar grants them license to do so on a particular day). —David Levy 14:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That said, there are still good jokes and bad jokes, and the distinction is subtle and debatable. I am, of course, sternly opposed to all bad jokes. Humourless killjoys, otoh, may be recognized at that they do not make the distinction, but think that a joke is a joke, and each one is one too many on a respectable website. dab () 13:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with the extraordinary (but factual) content. I'm not okay with hoaxes (such as false claims and phony links). —David Levy 14:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I reverted myself as soon as i reloaded the page. — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay folks, where's the April Fool's Day joke?

Just asking. NoseNuggets 1:33 AM US EST Apr 1 2006.

This is an encyclopedia. Perhaps you're looking for Uncyclopedia. —David Levy 06:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I know you don't want the killjoy image, but that comment honestly doesn't get you very far in avoiding that image. Does that mean an encyclopaedia can't display a sense of humour in one day of the year. People will screenshot it and keep it forever as a special event Wikipedia Main Page (April 1 2006). It won't affect Wikipedia's image. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - where are they? Can't we even have some of the ideas at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page? Real but extraordinary stuff? I don't buy this nonsense about our reputation - if someone chooses April Fools to do serious research then there's seriously something very wrong with them. Random visitors to the page will expect jokes. --Celestianpower háblame 08:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The real but extraordinary stuff is acceptable. I never said that I opposed the concept of having some fun. I do, however, oppose the insertion of hoaxes (any day of the year). This is an encyclopedia, and it doesn't magically become a humor website on 1 April.
Your assertion that anyone who attempts to do serious research today has "seriously something very wrong with them" is stunning. Today happens to be a Saturday, which is a major homework day for many students (whose schooling and/or jobs leave little free time during most of the week). The notion that Wikipedia should forsake these individuals in the interest of humor (something readily available elsewhere on the Internet) is highly irresponsible.
And of course, April Fool's Day is not a worldwide custom. Do people in countries in which it isn't widely observed also have "seriously something very wrong with them," or do you simply not care about them? —David Levy 15:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the current DYK leave off the "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" language? Melchoir 08:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. --Celestianpower háblame 08:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, as someone who reads Wikipedia on a regular basis, and has contributed to a number of articles, I find it more than a bit pathetic that there is no way for Wikipedia to participate in what I and I believe many other Americans consider a rather worthwhile exercise of playing hoaxes on others, if only for a day. Soren9580 11:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that this is an "American" website?
Of course, April Fool's Day isn't strictly an American custom, but it isn't a worldwide custom either. —David Levy 15:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I find people who enjoy playing pranks at other people's expense "a bit pathetic". Humiliation, discomfort, and embarassment (the main sources of humour from physical comedy, pranks, and gullibility jokes), are the bottom of the humour barrel. I dislike this entire day, and don't see why someone else's liking it forces myself and others to endure its consequences. Monty Python is cracking good stuff. However, April fools "hoaxes and pranks" are more like Punk'd. --Quiddity 19:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of real articles which are either on humourous topics (you have two cows, flying spaghetti monsters, formula jokes such as changing lightbulbs, backronyms) or are in some way related to the theme (ie: April Fool (double agent) is real, despite the name). No reason why enough related (silly but real) content couldn't be found. --carlb 19:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree, unprotecting the main page is a bad idea, but can't the number of Admins permitted to edit it come up with something the least bit funny to add to one of the templates? I know the Featured Article is a big deal, but couldn't we at least for April fool's day come up with something that would be both funny and not compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? Soren9580 11:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Think of it this way: what if you needed to do some research on an important topic today? Do you think that you should be hindered by the fact that it happened to be April 1? I would be a bit upset. That said, making spoo a main page featured article for April 1 is a great compromise. It doesn't hurt Wikipedia as a reference, and yet it's a funny stunt. Bravo! -Harmil 13:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
just featuring a geeky article on 1 April is a very pathetic excuse for a compromise. Where is the joke in that, never mind the hoax? What are we making fun of here, ourselves? "We are so geeky, we cannot stand to make a joke even on April 1, but we are obsessively collecting pop culture trivia as if there was no other concern in the world"? This whole joke prevention squad we have here is rather sad, the whole point of April 1 hoaxes is that you don't know where you will find them. It will be very difficult to have an April 1 hoax on unencyclopedia, where every article is a hoax; what can they do? feature a serious article? I fully concur with Soren9580, a moderate amount of pranks will be very fine, thank you very much. Now if the prankster admins would just slightly outnumber the joke police, maybe we would get a palatable amount of hilarity? Can you try that please? dab () 13:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
So because you happen to believe that 1 April is an appropriate day for hoaxes, it's okay to vandalize the encyclopedia? What about countries in which April Fool's Day isn't widely observed? They don't matter? Or would it be okay to perform similar pranks on 28 December? —David Levy 15:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone in the world celebrates April Fool's. They won't be expecting anything foolish on the main page. I say leave it—the DYK's are ok, the FA is good, but other than that, let's act like we're a real encyclopedia. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


I'm in total agreement with David Levy and Spangineer here. I will also temporarily deadmin any person that either unprotects or vandalizes the Main Page from this point forward. Admins should deal with other vandalism the way they do any other day of the year - even if it is from another admin. But do avoid wheel wars - blocked admins should NOT unblock themselves unless they want to put their adminship in jeopardy. We do not relax our policies and guidelines for any day of the year. --mav 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How silly and extreme. Last year was characterised by excessive jokes and pranks. This year will be characterised by excessive measures to try and combat this. Perhaps we'll get a compromise next year... --Celestianpower háblame 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Not all all silly or extreme to enforce policy. --mav 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I see no valid reason to "compromise" the integrity of the encyclopedia. The fact that some people wish to turn it into Uncyclopedia and others wish to maintain the usual level of seriousness doesn't automatically mean that we must meet halfway. Nonetheless, we've done just that by including the extraordinary (yet factual) content on the main page. Hoaxes and nonsense, conversely, are absolutely unacceptable. —David Levy 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I understand your point of view and, despite disagreeing with it, do respect that. But, I feel that blocking and desysopping is totally unecessary and over-the-top. By the way, what I meant by compromise is that we could put together a community-wide thing and just do that, similar to Panorama, Google and many other such organisations. --Celestianpower háblame 17:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with April Fool's Day on Wikipedia on principle, but last year it got too ridiculous. It seems to be a slippery slope on a web site anyone can edit. Cigarette 16:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with David Levy on this one. The goal of Wikipedia is to create a serious encyclopedia, 365 days a year. Jokes belong in the userspace and nowhere else. Period. Canderson7 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't de-admin anyone on any other part of the year [for a first offense, at least]. Therefore, while I wouldn't participate in such a thing I think you can expect either a wheel war or a lot of yelling if you de-admin anyone over this. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's the April Fool's joke: an April Fool's joke in a can

Placing it here kills the spontaniety of it, but for those who missed it, this project announcement framed as an April Fool's joke was placed at the top of this talk page:

Special Announcement

Due to generous donations by several large corporations, Wikipedia can now afford to pay editors. All editors with over 1000 edits are elible to apply. For details on how to register for the payroll, CLICK HERE.

Unfortunately it was promptly removed. It is placed here totally in context as a post about the April Fool's fallout phenomenon, with respect to the Main Page (actually, this page, its talk page) and Wikipedia in general. Cheers. --Go for it! 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is "elible" part of the joke? —David Levy 18:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool, a typo. Yep, it appears it was a defacto part of the joke. --Go for it! 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hell yes I would. Part of my job as a Steward is to make sure rogue admins cause no harm. And using admin powers against policy is going rouge. -- mav 00:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Better Red than Dead? Georgewilliamherbert 03:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

Could someone please un-capitalize the word spoo? God, I'm nit-picky... —Bryan Nguyen | Talk 07:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


April Fools Font

I was immediately suspicious when my browser font size changed. Good job. It almost looked like normal operations. Please return control to the users, however. The wikipedes will get tired of controlling the globe on a volunteer basis. --Ancheta Wis 10:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Media Whores Online - new article grammar

This currently reads "...that the pseudonymous author of the defunct left-wing muckraker blog Media Whores Online has not been identified yet?" Could someone please change this to "has not yet been identified"? Thanks! --CrypticBacon 13:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Canderson7 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All hands on deck, battlestations, battlestations!

GENERAL WIKI, GENERAL WIKI. ALL USERS TO EDITORSTATIONS. ALL USERS TO EDITORSTATIONS. THIS IS NOT A DRILL. APRIL FOOLS LOCATED OFF STARBOARD BOW. GUNNERS PREPARE ANTIVANDAL CANNONS.

Why is Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 in DYK?

It was founded on 5 April 2004 so hardly qualifies as a New article. —This unsigned comment was added by SteveRwanda (talkcontribs) 15:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

That criterion has been relaxed for today only. —David Levy 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so serious

If a huge worldwide publically-traded like Google can play an April Fool's joke on the public, than certainly Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, can have a little humor. Most people contribute because Wikipedia is fun. Certain individuals feel that there should be no fun here and that could drive people away. --Nelson Ricardo 16:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Amen brother! --Nerd42 16:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is nothing funny about an April Fools joke on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and whose reputation is therefore in question. April Fools jokes are only funny on publications who are very, very rarely wrong or at least are seen as such. Wikipedia has never had that reputation and we never will if we allow pranks on top of the ones we have to put up with everyday. --mav 16:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • -1 Redundant Cyde Weys 16:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • +1 Insightful Cyde Weys 16:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not Slashdot. Thanks for proving my point. --mav 17:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • -1 Flamebait Cyde Weys 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There can be compromise here. For example, featuring Spoo and Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 are encyclopedic, but light-hearted. Last year's April Fool's front page was an example of taking the joke too far (and not being funny). I think this year's current Main Page is acceptable.

Heck, feature Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's a real article on a topic just serious enough to be encyclopædia-worthy but just silly enough to attract endless {{ThisIsNotTheUncyclopædia}} templates and nonsense. --carlb 19:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess so long as there remains an endless supply of editing and admin talent, there's no harm in sticking with pedantic humourlessness... but do understand that it alienates a significant number of highly educated people who might otherwise be prolific contributors. I continue to lurk, hoping this site will relax a little. I should probably give up. --Todd Lyons 21:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    Are you saying that you're reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia unless childish pranks are permitted? If so, I'm sorry about that, but I suspect that there are far more people whose reluctance stems from the fear of seeing their hard work replaced with nonsense.
    I see that you've "written dozens of articles for Uncyclopedia." That's fine, but it's unreasonable to expect the same atmosphere here. If you aren't interested in editing a serious encyclopedia, you probably are better off sticking with what you know. —David Levy 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    If you are able to laugh at yourself then you will do much better in life. People frequently talk of Google taking over everything, and their joke today is playing off this. They aren't re-enforcing the idea that they are taking over, but rather making fun of it. I think Wikipedia could probably have come up with something to the same effect. People question its reliability, and I'm sure there is something clever that could have been done to make fun of this. I think it is a loss to worry so much about credibility that you cant even be light about things. When Google plays an April Fools joke on me, I don't think 'Oh man, Gmail might not be as reliable as I thought!' or 'Perhaps this search result isn't an accurate representation of the most useful sites!' It is demeaning to the users of Wikipedia to assume they cannot understand an April Fools joke. Rangeley 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Google is operated by Google employees. When Google perpetrates a prank of this nature, it's an isolated incident; visitors can be assured that Google isn't going to do this on a regular basis. Wikipedia, conversely, is operated by volunteers. When Wikipedia features such a prank, it means that our infrastructure has allowed the site's integrity to be compromised to an unknown extent.
    People visit Google to search the Internet. The presence of a phony "Google Romance" section doesn't interfere with this objective, and Google doesn't mix nonsensical search results in with the real ones. People visit Wikipedia to read factual articles. If we sanction the presentation of fake information, we call into question the accuracy and reliability of the entire encyclopedia. How are readers supposed to know which articles to trust and which ones to ignore? The encyclopedia is effectively broken for an entire day, and some of you are okay with this. One poster even commented that anyone who attempts to conduct legitimate research on 1 April has "seriously something very wrong with them." Well, I disagree. There are plenty of websites on which zany shenanigans are welcome, but this isn't one of them.
    Just as I was able to buy groceries today without finding that my cereal box actually contained dog food, people should be able to read an encyclopedia without having their desired information replaced with lies and assorted nonsense. —David Levy 05:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Childish pranks? It's black and white thinking like yours, David, that makes it impossible to have a rational discussion. Exactly who in this thread is asking for this place to become Uncyclopedia? For someone claiming to attend college, you're extraordinarily dogmatic. The requests were asking for the place to loosen up a little for one day a year. --Todd Lyons 02:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    And that's what we did. We featured a great deal of unusual (and seemingly implausible) encyclopedic content on our main page. We even relaxed the "new articles" criterion ordinarily applied to the Did you Know... section. What more did you want? If the answer is "actual hoaxes," I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a humor website. —David Levy 05:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    And as far as the snide "sticking with what I know" comment, that would be work on my thesis, and certainly not wasting another second of time enduring the drone of a bureaucratic automaton. No need to reply (unless you really just enjoy reading your own replies), I won't see it. As the self-appointed welcome wagon / friendly greeter, you really are doing your part to alienate learned individuals that also possess a sense of humour. It's not like I would actually consult anything on Wikipedia for use in my own academic work, so why else would I be here? Moot point now, because I am no longer. :) --Todd Lyons 02:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry to see you go, but I'm sorrier that your constructive participation was contingent upon being permitted to vandalize on the side. [To ensure that Mr. Lyons sees this reply, I just registered an Uncyclopedia account and posted it on his talk page there.] —David Levy 05:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Mr. Lyons responded by archiving his talk page (including my message). —David Levy 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Correction: My message was not actually archived; it was simply removed. —David Levy 07:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Being too serious on April Fool's Day just because we don't have a 'reputation for accuracy' is exactly underlining our own insecurity about ourselves. If I were an outside user and was watching this unfold, I'd think "oh...they don't even trust themselves enough to lighten up a little bit, why should I trust them"? — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There are categories of information (Nuclear reactor controls, Air traffic control systems, Medical devices etc) where April Fools pranks are a bad idea for obvious reasons.
There are categories of information where April Fools pranks are hard to clean up. Wikipedia may fall under this category, but probably not. There are far too many eyes on things for truly bad stuff to stay very long, as a rule, though "leave it for the end of the day to clean up" rather than do it in realtime is a disruption to the normal editing repair process.
I have to agree with Ilyan about insecurity. Plenty of reputable information sources prank their viewers/readers/customers on 4/1, every year. If Wikipedia is afraid of people not getting the joke, include a 4/1 only banner disclaimer at the top. If we're afraid of people not cleaning up, make failure to clean up your 4/1 messes a blockable offense. But a lot of the reaction above today is just excessive. The pranks I saw today were not destructive, in good humor, and seem to have elicited an unjustifyably bad reaction among a set of the editors and admins. For shame, gentlemen. Georgewilliamherbert 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh good god yes! this guy gets it! -Malomeat 03:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Many of you continue to operate under the assumption that April Fool's Day is a universal observance, and that you were deprived of your irrevocable entitlement to prank readers. Well, none of that is true. April Fool's day is not a worldwide tradition, and 1 April is not a license to vandalize the encyclopedia.

If so-and-so cultures were to declare that a certain date is "Punch People in the Stomach Day," that wouldn't give them the right to go around indiscriminately punching people in the stomach, nor would opponents of this custom be required to compromise on an "acceptable" amount of stomach-punching. Yes, that's an extreme analogy, but the basic principles apply. —David Levy 05:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. It's pure cultural-ethnocentrism, to assume someone who doesnt share your sense of humour doesnt have one. To me, April 1 feels like being made to watch Punk'd for 16 hours. (which I would only wish on my worst enemy..). -Quiddity 06:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
So do you go hide in a hole rather than chance across a prank on the TV news, in your newspaper, etc? Georgewilliamherbert 06:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What's your point? That Wikipedia has no choice but to be sucked into the abyss of unreliability? We can't strive to provide accurate information on a day when it's more difficult than usual to find? —David Levy 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Please point to examples of users committing or attempting vandalism which would provide truly inaccurate information (and not evident jokes) here today. The nature of the things tried were, for the most part, meta-jokes, which generally got slammed despite having nothign to do with misinformation. Georgewilliamherbert 08:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1. Two admins permitted all users to edit the main page's content. This could have resulted in any type of page vandalism under the sun. 2. Meta-jokes (such as claiming that 1 April's featured article actually was that of 31 March, and inserting the phony "new messages" banner) still convey false information. 3. The "any monkey can edit" gag was simply offensive, as it resembled the context in which "monkey" is used as a racial epithet. 4. Please peruse the revision history of Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page (and read the talk page) for examples of the misinformation and sheer nonsense that I nipped in the bud. —David Levy 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a regular and expected occurrence in the english speaking world and much of Europe. And I've seen pranks in Japan and elsewhere on April 1. This is a sufficiently widespread phenomenon in the engish speaking world that doing it to the english language wikipedia is not out of place. Georgewilliamherbert 06:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
No, the perpetration of pranks throughout the day is not a regular and expected occurrence in the English-speaking world. In some countries in which English is widely spoken, the custom is nonexistent or significantly different.
Please see April Fool's Day and any real-world exposure to what's going on out there. Pranking is common, widespread even, expected, and enjoyed across the western world. Going into denial about it is an irrational response to this discussion. Georgewilliamherbert 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Please take your own advice by reading April Fool's Day. Note the phrase "throughout the day." Also cite the source of your apparent belief that this site is off-limits to people not residing in "the western world." —David Levy 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, the English language Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for such behavior. —David Levy 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The appropriateness of Wikipedia as a venue is the subject of this discussion, and your position is not supported by an evident consensus or identified policy. (Nor is mine; obviously, this needs to get clarified). Georgewilliamherbert 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The onus is in you (and those with your stance) to provide evidence to support the contention that 1 April is a day on which official policies are set aside and vandalism is both permitted and encouraged.
Again, irrespective of the custom's popularity, there are some situations in which it simply isn't appropriate to perpetrate pranks. As I mentioned, I purchased groceries yesterday, and my cereal wasn't switched with dog food. I could have visited my local public library, and I guarantee that none of the reference books were modified to contain phony information. This is an encyclopedia, and it needs to stay that way. —David Levy 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The analogy to hitting people in the stomach is reducto ad absurdum. Properly done (and promptly undone) April 1 pranks harm nobody physically, and if done right won't get in the way of anyone finding real info on WP (as they don't in other media where TV networks, print magazines and newspapers etc do stuff for April Fools). Georgewilliamherbert 06:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Please define "done right." —David Levy 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, where nobody takes offense at the specific thing done (not a personal or organizational attack), and it gets cleaned up promptly, as two good starting point criteria. Georgewilliamherbert 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Add "no deliberately false information" and "no interference with the site's regular uses" to the list, and I'm sold. —David Levy 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Calling April 1 pranks Vandalism is... our point. If TV networks do it, major mainstream web sites, newspapers, politicians, entertainers... and yet the prevailing Wikipedia response is That's not funny, then Wikipedia has a problem. Organizations which are so rigid as to be institutionally unable to relax and have fun are broken, and self destructive. Wikipedia is not that type of organization, on the whole... but the response to April 1 by a limited subset of editors and admins is showing that sort of problem. Allowing the response to go unchallenged, and to set further precedent, is a terrible thing. So here we are. Georgewilliamherbert 06:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the fact that many different entities engage in April Fool's Day pranks does not automatically mean that we must act in kind. An arbitrary custom doesn't override our policies, let alone our mission. That so many people have vilified (not merely disagreed with, but actually portrayed as downright vile) all attempts to counter flagrant vandalism is quite disturbing. —David Levy 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
David, you reverted three users, two by rollback, including one admin, who were trying to insert a joking announcement for the actual early start of WP:TOTD in the talk header here.
Yes, I repeatedly reverted the deliberate insertion of a fraudulent Wikimedia Foundation announcement onto one of the site's most visited talk pages (and the first one seen by many readers). Notice that I didn't speedily delete the newly-created template, as I was mindful of its potential use in the user namespaces (which I was willing to tolerate).
You then used {{test2}} on one of them,
Yes, I followed the standard procedure, excepting the fact that I excused the first infraction without issuing a warning. In the future, I'll be sure to insert {{test1}} at that point.
who is one of the only 3 or 4 regular editors we have on Ethiopia-related articles,
How is that relevant? Is that a license to commit vandalism?
and then blew him off when he protested that it wasn't "second level warning" worthy.
I blew no one off. I merely explained that we have a year-round "official policy" against vandalism (and therefore don't need a special one for any particular date) and disputed his assertion that his vandalism (a label that he contested) somehow warranted "discussion" beyond the usual warnings.
After the announcement was placed in the talk above, your response was to mock a typo.
Huh?! I wasn't sure whether that was a typo or a part of the joke, so I inquired. When Go for it! explained that it was the former, I posted no such mockery.
That you seem to feel that you are the aggrieved party in this is quite disturbing. - BanyanTree 07:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The aggrieved parties are Wikipedia and is readers. Hopefully, the damage has been mitigated as much as possible. —David Levy 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I wrote four different responses and decided in each case that it broke NPA. I am dropping this and going to eat a yummy mango. Regards, BanyanTree 19:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It's bizarre to me to see someone calling a custom dating back at least to 1508 (see April Fool's Day#Origin) would be described as arbitrary. The very fact that so many people did, or tried to do, some form of prank here on Wikipedia is a clear indication of how widespread and standard participation in April Fools is. Proof by example certainly has to count for something. Georgewilliamherbert 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Countless people vandalize the encyclopedia every day. This makes it okay? —David Levy 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no debate that some April Fools activity isn't ok. The Main Page and notable articles were very carefully handcrafted in the spirit of showing bizarre but true things. Those activities were zero to low controversy. This debate is only over whether going a little further with harmless and appropriately reverted other pranks is a disaster for wikipedia as a whole or not. Georgewilliamherbert 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to provide a neutral summary of the debate, you'll need to remove the words "harmless" and "appropriately," and "a disaster for wikipedia" should be replaced with "harmful to Wikipedia and its readers." —David Levy 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously a little old now, but I like the argument about Google Romance - that the joke doesn't affect the normal working of the site. By that token, we should not introduce fiction into article space, but Talk pages and especially Wikipedia community pages should be more tolerant. I was pleased that the AfD for WP:BJAODN stayed up, for instance, resulting in the 'deletion' of that page, which fooled me for a moment. On the user side, modifying some of the templates or MediaWiki strings might be harmless enough, depending on what it was (though the watched -> stalked thing is always controversial, so that's not a good idea). -- Mithent 15:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a few late comments. I totally agree with David Levy and those that were trying to prevent things getting out of control. I liked Go for it's fake tip of the day, but I agree that anything in article namespace is not acceptable. And about WP:BJAODN, I saw that AfD, and I am now very confused. Clicking on WP:BJAODN seems to show that the page is still there, but clicking on the red link here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense seems to indicate that it has been deleted. I obviously fell for the joke, as I thought that BJAODN had actually been deleted. Is that a 'fake' red link? How did that happen? Carcharoth 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. Someone put a capital 'I' in the link instead of an 'l': [[Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other DeIeted Nonsense|Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense]]. Good one. I fell for that completely. Carcharoth 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Huh? It still renders as an 'l'. ??? The link actually reads as: "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other DeIeted Nonsense|Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense". Carcharoth 18:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
(I think that was an edit conflict) Is this a bug or a feature? That 'I' (upper-case 'i') and 'l' (lower-case version of upper-case 'L') look the same? Could cause confusion somewhere at some point. Carcharoth 18:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1. An "edit conflict" occurs when the MediaWiki software detects that a user is editing a page/section that has been edited while he/she was composing a new message, and refuses to post said message until the he/she has manually inserted it in the appropriate location (assuming that it remains applicable). Sometimes, MediaWiki believes that it's safe to automatically merge the new message in (without prompting the user), but I've found that this generally causes more problems than it prevents. (In this instance, my reply answered a question that already had been answered, and it appeared in an inappropriate location.)
2. This is a very old trick, and it certainly isn't a deliberate feature. In some fonts, this doesn't work, but the number "1" can be used instead. —David Levy 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

main page takes too long to load.

is there anyway something could be done to prevent the length of time it takes to load the Main page. maybe a widget or something?

you can try and get DSL. it loads fine for me. dposse 01:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

colors

Hey...I liked the multi-colored headers. Osbus 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The green and blue columns (and darker header colors) haven't changed in the last few weeks..? You may be having browser problems, try clearing your cache. (or are you meaning something else?) --Quiddity 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
What I have now is:
  • Today's featured article is green
  • In the News is blue
  • Did you know... is green
  • On this day... is blue
  • and Today's featured picture is purple

Before, I had everything light blue, which I didn't quite like. Osbus 00:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalked pages

LOL! Just realized that tiny little april fool's stuff. __earth (Talk) 19:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated. I'm all for the jokes, I've participated. But if this layout is a joke, it's not funny and very disruptive to every monobook out there. Not cool man, not cool. T K E 19:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of this annual April Foolishness. Will someone who knows where to fix it please correct the link to "my watchlist"? This is not funny anymore. Rossami (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Stalking other people's actions is never funny. Please repair the Main Page to return "Stalked Pages" to "My Watchlist". Wdfarmer 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It's been fixed by Naconkantari. The admin that made the change, User:Cyde, has been blocked for a year until tomorrow by Essjay. Canderson7 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Essjay blocked Cyde (very sensibly, imo) until 0001 April 2 2006. Until there is no longer any excuse to clown around like Cyde has been doing for the best part of 24 hours. -Splashtalk 20:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
My bad for misreading the timestamp, thanks for clearing that up. I too agree with the block. Canderson7 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
And I don't agree with it. Now we've both contributed nothing but our vote. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-2 17:36

Time and dates

I'd like to see the current time and date on the main page, would you guys consider making that happen?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.254.130 (talkcontribs)

The current date and time where? Bazza 10:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, since we couldn't have one time and date because of time zones, we could have the time and date of major cities... Sotakeit 11:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
In theory.. there's already a lot on the main page, though. A site like this has the information you need. -- Mithent 14:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Daylight Saving Time

Should Daylight Saving Time be mentioned in "On this day...", since DST begins today for most of North America? SCHZMO 12:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it also ends today in Australia, so I'll add both notations. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 13:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, they put up Daylight Saving Time, but they misspelled it. When you follow the link, it goes to the correct spelling Daylight Saving Time, and then the article goes on to say that is commonly misspelled as Daylight Savings Time, just as it's spelled on the front page. Could this be corrected? -Asacan 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Letting Your Hair Down

What happened to the April Fool's thing yesterday? Is this really the "boring" image that Wikipedia wants?

<mindspillage> BrianNewZealand: Wikipedia has a sense of humor... sometimes... like a businessman wearing cartoon-print boxers under a gray suit. ;-) <rcmurphy> Under a gray suit, six talk pages and a committee.

Now I understand about professionalism and all, but other so-called "professional" sites were doing it. Even MSN and supposedly joke sites were getting in on the joke. --Lugiatm (talkcontribs) 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Our joke is to not doing anything for April Fools. For a holiday not to be taken seriously, you seem to be pretty serious about us following suit. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-2 17:34

Especially reading the above comments by DavidLevy (if I remember correctly the name... if not, sorry, I'm tired), I have to say I'm very happy that I do not take part in this site, and am honest-to-some-diety concerned about whether nor not this site truly has true information. While David only went around discussing about how everybody who celebrates April Fool's Day is a moron and a half, he was also fairly draconian in deciding what would go up and what wouldn't and took acts to delete that.

1. I engaged in no such name-calling, nor did I even imply that observers of April Fool's Day are "morons."
2. I didn't unilaterally decide that this is an encyclopedia (not a humor website), nor did I establish our content policies. I merely sought to uphold the rules by countering vandalism. And for the record, I deleted nothing on 1 April.

Does this happen on a daily basis as well with things that David deems "inappropriate"??

Again, I didn't take it upon myself to deem vandalism "inappropriate."

How can I find articles that I'm positive David hasn't canvassed? Censored? While I understand this may be extreme, it definatly shows me the problems in relying on a site like this to show all sides of anything. After all, screw April Fool's Day, right? Just because some people celebrate it doesn't mean we should even make mention of it.

When did I make any statement remotely resembling the above? I made no attempt to remove mentions of April Fool's Day (which certainly is a notable observance).

Must take down the mention of monkey's because it's "offensive"?! I read that and literally gasped.

I didn't remove that joke, but I would have if another admin hadn't done so. Yes, referring to people as monkeys can be interpreted as a racial epithet. While that undoubtedly was not the intended connotation, this was an extremely ill-advised prank from a user who should have known better.

So, David, what else do you find offensive? I need to know so I can steer clear of those articles.

I'm not offended by the presentation of any factual content, regardless of my opinion of the subject matter. I am, however, offended by attempts to pollute the encyclopedia with phony or nonsensical information. That's called "vandalism."

I obviously can't rely on them to give me full information. In conclusion to my little mindspillage... I seriously hope there's no mention on this site about that stupid Christmas crap that happens on the 25th of December. You might offend somebody, and not everybody celebrates it, right?

We obviously recognize Christmas, and we provide factual, encyclopedic information about the holiday. We do not, however, add a message to the main page affirming that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. One person's right to hold a belief doesn't trump anyone else's right to access a professional, NPOV encyclopedia.

(On a side note... I didn't celebrate April Fool's at all. I think it's stupid... but I don't go stepping on other people's toes that want to enjoy it). ~*Random Semi-Anonymous User*~ —This unsigned comment was added by 216.120.133.154 (talkcontribs) 19:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC).

Likewise, people can observe the custom without stepping on the toes of those who wish to continue accessing a legitimate encyclopedia. —David Levy 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Typo

Under Did You Know, "breakthough" should be "breakthrough". Art LaPella 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. —David Levy 21:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Mispellings

This is a serious question, what is up with all the main page mispellings recently. They've always been a problem of course since not a huge number of people proofread everything before it goes up on the main page but recently if reports of mispellings on this talk page are any indication are any way to count becoming a bigger problem. Maybe a group should be setup to proofread the main page stuff the day before it's supposed to go up or something along those lines. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea (to whatever extent this is possible).
Incidentally, you misspelled the word "misspellings."  :-) —David Levy 03:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I was testing you... well I'm not sure how feasible it is nor do I have any ideas for an implementation but I'm sure someone who is better at this type of thing than me can try to think up a solution. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Also wikifying. By the way, can someone wikify "playoffs" on the TFA, please ? Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The way to implement this would be to have the blurbs made ready a few days in advance, ie. have a buffer built up. Then an appeal could be made for people to give things the once over. I imagine it must be stressful enough to have to set up the main page template contents without having to worry about proof-reading. This would work for featured articles, "did you know", "on this day" and the featured picture blurbs, but would be more problematic for "in the news", which I believe is updated several times a day. That area would need to be proof-read by the editor setting up the content. And of course, you would still have the admins who watch the main page make further corrections if people spot them after the various texts enter protected templates. Carcharoth 13:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

IIRC we're supposed to do this. Problem is few actually bother to proofread the readymade blurbs. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
List the locations where the buffers are stored for the next day and I'll add them to my watchlist and join the rank and file of those proofreading them. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 14:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, anyone can start working now at the following pages:
Have fun copyediting and wikifying. -- 199.71.174.100 19:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In reference to this effort, the Main Page content for the following day can always be viewed at Main Page alternative (tomorrow). If people review that and comment on mis-spellings they can be corrected before it 'officially' goes live. --CBDunkerson 01:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Main Page alternative (tomorrow) does not include the candidates for DYK and ITN. -- 199.71.174.100 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)