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

The webpage formatting just changed. It looks... "incomplete". It was normal a few minutes ago. Can somebody fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constructman (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not much to see at the server admin log on wikitech. Was probably a failed DDOS attempt (there was one on the 13th of this month on Bugzilla).Jasper Deng (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how but the Monobok CSS file fails to load. The other skins are not affected, but once in awhile the CSS file is gone or something and it looks very bare and incomplete unless I switch skins. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Our daily featured pictures are, by definition, of visual appeal, so why don't we put them above the fold, perhaps swapping their place with the news headlines (with the text below the image); or putting them top left, the featured article top right, and the news where the featured pictures currently sit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A full-width configuration is the only type that works reasonably well at lower resolutions and adequately accommodates panoramic images.

We know this from past experience; the featured picture formerly appeared in one of the columns (with the text below it, as you described), resulting in various significant layout problems. —David Levy 11:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of panoramic images, I would like to raise a question as to their suitability for main-page featured pictures. They are very difficult to view due to their immense width, and on computers such as smaller laptops, it is a difficult task to scroll horizontally well enough to appreciate the picture. --Shirudo talk 11:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot agree too strongly with the views expressed above that the featured picture should be more prominent ... and usually much bigger. Tony (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently running a poll to see why so few people are suggesting featured articles for me to use on the main page (excepting requests for a specific date). See the poll at here. Raul654 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Has an admin come along and wiped all trace of the complaints about todays TFA? After all, if a work of fiction such as an episode of South Park or a silly gross-out horror film can cause such offense, surely the true life story of a murderer feeding her neighbours her victims must have traumatised a few seven year olds and led to a few awkward discussions with parents? Coolug (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You would think. — foxj 17:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Coolug (talk · contribs) is spot on, I was about to remark upon the exact same thing. Apparently choice of TFA is only offensive to certain people if it's less than 100 years old, or in a cartoon format, or something like that? :P Many thanks to Coolug (talk · contribs), for pointing this out! ;) — Cirt (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No "anal", no "probe", no problem it would seem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hate those kinds of complaints about pop culture featured articles, but it's rarely to do with the offensiveness of the topic, it was always just because it was pop culture/in-universe "fancruft", it was the same story when it was Bulbasaur.. as I remember someone even crusaded to make sure no more pokémon articles were featured after that and was (for a time) successful =/ - filelakeshoe 22:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting myself from last month's discussion:

These complaints seem to stem more from the perception that a subject is trivial or unimportant than from anything else (hence the flood of angry posts whenever an article about something from popular culture appears). A "naughty" word merely helps to stir up the sentiment.

—David Levy 22:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

<MrGarrison>Anuses are baaad, mmkay?</MrGarrison> Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a form of systemic bias, maybe someone should write an essay/article about it and teach people how genre trash turned into respectable classics only after the passage of time. One of the best things about WP is its academic-ish documentation of pop culture. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion at Talk:Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe#Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe_vs._Murder_of_Julia_Martha_Thomas. — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this comment by Green Cardamom (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2, 2012

Archive is wrong, should link to March 2012, not February 2012, someone please fix it? — Cirt (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed by HJ Mitchel: [1]. meshach (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I just got a message to help improve the caption. I did but that is not reflected on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've copied over the updated text. Thanks! —David Levy 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Would not it be more accurate to say he was elected for the third time? Or for the third term at least?--141.161.133.224 (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can the picture be changed to that of Mayor Quimby from The Simpsons? Lugnuts (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you note relevance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.71.124 (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a joke? --WaltCip (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that since 2011, there have been some reports of news changes in the main page section. There are also rumors on 4chan saying that Anonymous has been changing wikipedia without anyone noticing. Has this been confirmed and should I be concerned? 4chan is not something to usually take seriously, but I hope I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.45.62 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"News changes"? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am quite certain that there is no way to change Wikipedia without anyone noticing, and that you should not take anything on 4chan for fact. Shirudo talk 06:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would Anonymous even bother with Wikipedia? - Tenebris 16:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.121 (talk)

If no-one noticed the changes, did they really occur? HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's strange to me not to see the International Women's Day listed in today (March 8) "On this day" section (whereas, for example, "Mother's Day in various countries" is listed though this celebration in this day is less world-wide known). --95.252.24.45 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have inserted it - it was not included as the citations were not in the correct format. — foxj 08:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see International Women's Day marked with a woman FA and woman-heavy DYK up right now. Just a shame every single woman, both real and fictional, is American. So much for the 'international' bit ... 86.133.209.235 (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Where were you a few hours earlier when there were European women on DYK????? --70.31.8.76 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You missed the Australian part where there weren't any Australians, Kiwis, Asians or any articles really about women. --LauraHale (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

When is International Men's Day?Ryoung122 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is today, judging by the picture of the Manly ferry :) Teemu08 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The International Men's Day article says November 19th. --PFHLai (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I spent some time in Russia, where the International Women's Day tradition was kept alive. The male counterpart in Russia is February 23, Red Army Day when all men are congratulated just for being men. Somehow I always felt a bit odd about that. Our article tells it pretty well

"In Russia

Officially, as the name suggests, the holiday celebrates people who are serving or were serving the Russian Armed Forces (both men and women), but unofficially, nationally it has also more recently come to include the celebration of men as a whole, and to act as a counterpart of International Women's Day on March 8."

Smallbones (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

When I started putting the Women's Day hook sets together, I had an Australian woman's bio (written by LauraHale!) on prep, slated to appear on MainPage at 0:00 UTC (already day time in Australia) on March 8th. Somehow that hook got moved while I wasn't looking..... sigh.... I regret not reverting the prep to my edits... Too late now... --PFHLai (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There was some alternative proposals for TFA but they didn't really have any greater relevance and the eventual TFA was proposed first. You're welcome to get involved in the selection of future TFAs for IWD. I don't recall any of the examples being Australians, Kiwis or Asians, but you're welcome to being an article up to FA standard in time for next years IWD. (Although I'm not sure why you single out Australians and Kiwis, I'm kiwi but it seems to me a lack of Africans would be more significant given their much larger percentage of the population.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The lack of Africans is a systemic bias, I think. And it seems we are getting fewer India-related items these days, at least on DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The below sentence is awkward; the comma after "28 April" is not necessary:

Despite Graham-White's best efforts, Paulhan arrived in Manchester on 28 April, and won the prize.

Also, I detest that we have Wikipedia by language, not by nation. "Aeroplane" is not a word in the USA.Ryoung122 16:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Creating separate BrE and AmE versions of Wikipedia would involve a ridiculous duplication of effort and would split the editor and reader bases for no real reason. Are you really that offended by the presence of such an easily grokkable and perfectly cromulent word? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind the need for CanE and AusE and probably others. Newfoundland English Wikipedia, perhaps? Resolute 00:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, there's the issue of countries with more than one national language. Under this new "nation-based domain" scheme, what language would editors use for the Swiss Wikipedia? I shudder to even consider the task of unifying an "Indian Wikipedia". GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A Vatican City Wikipedia would be quite easy to make.--WaltCip (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Latin and Italian are not the same. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Ryoung122, you've learnt a new word that you'll find useful outside that one country on this big planet. --PFHLai (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As an American just let me say I have no problem with the word "aeroplane". However, I have a very large problem with the phrase "the below sentence". --Khajidha (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

BAM! Lugnuts (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha what? You want everything to be in US-English? What a troll. This is an international project. --Nutthida (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposal in that Wikipedia talk page may suddenly affect Main Page. Nevertheless, I found a proposal too important for this talk page, as it may inspire renamings of Wikipedia namespaces and future pages of "WP:This week's featured list/<subpage>". Discussion in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Renaming and re-stylizing Today's Featured List?. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "too important for this talk page" and "may inspire renamings of Wikipedia namespaces"... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

An issue was posted to Wikipedia:Help desk#Oddity on front page. The Main Page tabs can be hard to click in MonoBook with Firefox, Google Chrome and Opera: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?useskin=monobook. If the mouse moves to the tabs from above then it works as expected, but not from below. The tabs don't become clickable until the arrow tip reaches around the top of the letters and turns into a hand. I guess the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box is too close to the tabs for MonoBook. It's positioned above the normal page area. I don't have problems in IE. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Pale Moon and have the problem, apart from the fact they are not click able at all. But I regularly use Vector. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this issue yesterday; must have been caused by a software update or some other tweak to the homepage in the last week or so, is my guess. Perhaps filing a Bugzilla request is the best course of action. — foxj 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the new version of MediaWiki, 1.19, was implemented on 1 March, and caused a bunch of bugs. There's a thread at WP:VPT you could try raising the issue in. Modest Genius ^talk 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved from WT:TFL. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that the front page seems to be such a clusterfuck of randomosity that I almost never bother to read any of it, and would like a far more minimalist portal, if feasable. In fact, the only main page content that ever really interests me is the picture, and it's too far down for me to bother scrolling to. I don't come to wikipedia to read the news. If I want to browse erratically I'll use the random article feature or google. The languages list in the sidebar is expanded by default, creating more clutter. I came to "en.wikipedia.org" knowning that "en" stands for something: english. One simple link to alternate language portal is sufficient, especially given the redundant list near the foot of the page. That's what the "wikipedia.org" portal is for. I opt for a far reduced amount of text in general, if you must list any of this nonsense, or offer a separate "main" with a more minimal layout. Reference wikihow, encyclopedia mythica, encyclopedia brittanica, or my favorite example, wordnik, for examples of seemingly less distracting mains. --24.52.143.225 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:MPALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The PDA version is slightly more tolerable. Thanks for the link, in any case. --24.52.143.225 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps make your landing page Template:POTD. — foxj 03:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

One person's nonsense is another person's treasure. For myself, a random collection of miscellania helps me avoid the mental rut of a too-narrow focus. It gives unexpected tangents and new directions. Sometimes I find myself looking further into things I had never previously thought even to ask about. - Tenebris 16:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.121 (talk)

Fair enough, although I suppose we may as well toss a chess move of the day in there, and perhaps a golf swing. (Two games I respect, yet am terrible at, and passionately hate.) Quote of the day? Fortune cookie? On a more serious note, your argument is quite fair. Thanks for your response. --24.52.143.225 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, and your time and attention. --24.52.143.225 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. At the very least, things need to spaced out. Primate^#101 04:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Whitespace would fix a lot. Also, the featured article could be more succinctly summarized, or just truncated more, and the lists made shorter. Perhaps the best solution I can think of is to have a short version of each section, expandable to a slightly larger version, perhaps upon mouseover, although admittedly I detest mouseover effects in general. Perhaps just a click-to-expand method would be tolerable, although I would recommend much faster slide effect than the interaction, toolbox, and print/export sidebar "menus", if one is used at all. Also, and this is quite subjective as well, but I find that while internal links are one of wikipedia's, and truly wikis' in general, most useful features, when I visit the main(s) with featured elements, I perceive visual clutter from the massive number of hyperlinks. Perhaps the feature could simply link to the article, or some greying effect could be applied until mouseover of some div or td. I really don't know of the limitations or extensibility of mediawik, however. --24.52.143.225 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting rather long, moved to Talk:Main Page/"Gay pornography" discussion March 2012. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm begging you, please, please, please in the name of the sun and the moon and the stars, stop using javascript to inject the banner into the DOM after the page renders. I'm so fed up with the page layout changing just as I'm about to click something because jQuery fired a callback and a banner appeared. Thanks. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Solved the problem myself with the below adblock plus filter

*.wikipedia.org/*BannerListLoader*

--76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The implementation is pretty frustrating. The same thing happens to me. Just about to click a link then the whole page jumps. APL (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this really a Main Page issue? Sounds like something for WP:VPT to me. Modest Genius ^talk 10:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved to WP:VPT --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – It has now been added to ITN. Bencherlite^Talk 12:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Any reason the Afghan massacre isn't included on the "In the news" tableau? 177.17.68.211 (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Alkozai massacre. Jenks24 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please add Telugu Wikipedia, http://te.wikipedia.org in the 50,000+ articles list. Telugu wiki crossed the 50,000 articles mile stone few hours ago! --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia languages states that the list "is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted." I just conducted a sample of pages using the random page function, of which ALL sampled articles were either stubs, disambiguation pages or empty/one-liner placeholders. matt (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the panorama really a 360° view? I'd rather say it's a 180 degree photo... Just wanted too make sure that's right Felix.winter2010 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The image description page for File:Freiburg Schlossbergturm Panorama 2010.jpg says it's 360, and I have no reason to doubt that. —howcheng {chat} 01:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The two outer edges match up, so it has to be 360°. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Will the main page turn green for one day? --70.31.8.76 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If you mean literally, then no. If you mean figuratively, then mostly no, aside from a brief mention of the holiday in the "on this day" section. If we wanted to literally turn the page green, it would probably be a simple matter to turn all of the colored boxes surrounding the section headers green for a day (using the same shade that two of them currently are), which might be suitably subtle and classy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Different shades of green on the main page? Sounds like a good idea. --70.31.8.76 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't call it "St Patty's Day" – Patty is a girl's name. "St Paddy's Day" is acceptable. 83.244.191.158 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So changed to "Paddy". --70.31.8.76 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's an appalling idea. This is meant to be a reputable encyclopaedia, not a pub parade. Kevin McE (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think "reputable", being as subjective a term as it is, may be highly contested even within our own userbase.--WaltCip (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Read it again: meant to be. Kevin McE (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Google is supposed to be a reputable search engine, and yet they alter their logo for such days. I don't see a conflict. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Google is a different kettle of fish entirely. They do this every second day. — foxj 04:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And if they can do it that often, yet we can't even do it once, what's the reason ? StuRat (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Google can arbitrarily commemorate certain observances (and ignore others) without regard for maintaining neutrality. —David Levy 05:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary temporary preferential treatment of a theme is not contrary to the purpose of a search engine: it is in relation to an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If Google doesn't commemorate Mothering Sunday tomorrow, this will have no direct impact on its mission as a company. Conversely, if Wikipedia were to pick and choose certain observances to commemorate, its neutrality (or the pursuit thereof) would be compromised.

Also note that Google's content is localized, so it can target such material to specific regions (and often does). The English Wikipedia has one Main Page for the entire planet. —David Levy 08:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The death of George Tupou V has been announced and is making international news headlines. Can I suggest this piece be moved to the In The News section on the main page? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 02:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Pls be invited to go to WP:ITN/C. --PFHLai (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have begun soliciting suggestions for the April Fools featured article at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#April_Fools_suggestions. Raul654 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And just to add my two cents to the lengthy discussion above regarding the propriety of Wikipedia doing anything on April Fools: as I said on the TFA page, The goal is to fool people into dismissing the article as an obvious hoax when in fact it is completely true. Bonus points for funny or weird subject matter. My feeling is that there aren't a whole lot of articles that really fit this bill. The museum of bad art was a *perfect* choice, and so is pigeon photography (this year's front-runner so far).

In past years, the other sections of the main page have had to resort to doing write-ups that are outlandishly phrased, or using words with double meaning, or resorting to hyperbole and exaggeration, or carefully omitting context, etc in order to create write-ups that were technically true but obviously designed to mislead readers. I think this hit-you-over-the-head approach ruins the subtle effect we're aiming for. (And I admit that by this standard, Ima Hogg and George Washington (inventor) weren't quite perfect candidates either. Both required some degree of exaggeration and selective omission in order to make them 'work' as would-be hoaxes)

So, to summarize: apparently-hoax-articles-that-aren't-really-hoaxes are good in my book, but outlandishly-phrased-technically-true-blurbs are not. Raul654 (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be more 'mildly baffling/curious/oddly angled to incur interest' entries on the main page generally. -Christmas Humphreys or the recently discovered 'Cromwellians banning Christmas' notice at that time of year etc. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement would have been such an awesome April Fool's article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Belittling a serious movement isn't really as apt a choice as the frontrunner, which is birds taking photographs... GRAPPLE X 03:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a news article today talking about some recent activity to the author of the Kony 2012 video. Is this news worthy to show on the front page?140.198.42.45 (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You can nominate stories for the "In the news" section at WP:ITN/C, but I think it's unlikely that the consensus would be to post that story. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As reported in The Signpost, the Slovak Wikipedia has now reached 150,000 articles. It (Slovenčina) is still listed on the main page as one of those with over 50,000 articles. - Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks! —David Levy 09:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed there was a chnage in that number, is that accurate?140.198.45.72 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the number of articles? If so, it is Sk:Špeciálne:Štatistika. If you mean some other number, you're going to have give us more details. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Same question as at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Protection of queues. Please reply here. Rcsprinter (state) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Consistently with all other content sections of the main page (the featured article/picture/list, In The News and On This Day), material that is, or is about to be, on the main page is fully protected to prevent vandalism. Semi-protection would not be enough to prevent vandalism, since history shows that there are plenty of people out there who are happy to invest the little amount of time needed to develop an auto-confirmed account in order to vandalise semi-protected pages. Errors in the queues can be reported and dealt with by admins; if they are missed, they can be reported at WP:ERRORS. In any case, the hooks will have been under consideration for a long time at T:TDYK and will often have sat in a preparation area for a while as well. The supposed benefits of allowing non-admins the ability to change hooks in an approved queue do not outweigh the risk of a vandal making obscene, libellous or copyvio changes to a queue moments before it is transferred to the main page. There is also no reason to make DYK queues the exception to the main page protection rule. It might also be technically difficult to unprotect the queues for DYK but not other main page content sections since Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow is cascade-protected (i.e. it fully protects all the templates transcluded onto it, including the next TFA, the next OTD, the next DYK etc). Bencherlite^Talk 17:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Experience shows that neither WT:DYK nor WP:ERRORS are necessarily responsive to reports of errors. The editors on them do a fine job, but many hours can sometimes pass during which those volunteers are all, co-incidentally, simultaneously not wiki-ing. If there were a reliable length of time that proposed blurbs remained in the prep areas, then more well-meaning eyes could review the proposals. Thankfully, vandalism in that section has been very rare (I can't recall eve seeing it), and checking at the stage of transfer to Queue should catch the obvious. Kevin McE (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, are you advocating for a lessening of protection for the queues, or calling for people to assemble DYK sets in the prep areas further in advance than is currently happening? I'm not sure having re-read your comment above. I know that WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS are not perfect in replying to reports of problems in the queues, but not every DYK rotation has problems that need addressing after all, since many problems are ironed out during the nomination process and / or the time spent in a prep area. But merely because the prep areas are not vandalised does not mean that the queues would not be if the protection for the queues was reduced from full to semi or none. As I see it, the risks of having vandalism appear on the main page outweigh the potential benefits of allowing non-admins to make changes to a queue right until the last second before it appears on the main page. And I can imagine the stink that this would cause - DYK letting the side down again, etc... Bencherlite^Talk 19:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm outraged that no one has complained about this yet.... Lugnuts (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Why wasn't it saved for April Fools Day???!!! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Or Palm Sunday. Lugnuts (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why have an article duplicating this? ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Or duplicating this?  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

On the front page I see a dead body in a canal, an execution by burning, a vandal being beaten to death, a scene of nudity... and :now this? Wikipedia should be ashamed at providing our readers access to such controversial information!--WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My empirical observation suggests the most immoral and God-condemned articles receive the most DYK views. :P --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There's been a cricket-related ITN item on Main Page since Friday, without even a hint of pitchfork-waving. All things considered, I think the complainers are on holiday. Or at a complainers' convention. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The real conspiracy is that Sachin Tendulkar has been in ITN, DYK, and Monday's featured list this week. -- tariqabjotu 12:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ha. From the first time I saw him play for Yorkshire, I always knew he wasn't human. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)\

I'm sure thats yet another record, which in turn warrants another ITN post of its own. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, there's a big fuss over at Wikipedia talk:Did you know which was also briefly at WP:ANI but never made it to this page. (Although not related to the masturbation day thing besides a very minor connection.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And some concern over nipples and Nikki Benz at Wikipedia:Help desk. HiLo48 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you guys going to complain about complainers every time something like this happens? There's no point in raising things like this when you clearly don't have an actual problem to address, other than to poke fun at the differing opinions of other readers from your self-perceived high ground. If you genuinely were at a better level than the people this is targeted at, you wouldn't have written it at all. This dead horse has been beaten enough, leave it be. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You're ruining the circlejerk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.21.66 (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Null, unless you're posting in a truly deeply ironic manner, I think you've totally missed the joke. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pre-emptive strikes are a recognised military strategy. HiLo48 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As a woman I find this conversation relevant to my feminine interests. Honestly, entertaining cry-baby parents who can't accept responsibility for their childrens internet viewing content is soooo old ever since...Cartman got an Anal probe. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, a DYK soon to appear is Template:Did you know nominations/Kjærlighetskarusellen ... that in 2009, the urinal known as "The Carousel of Love" (pictured), a well known place for gay cruising, was declared a Norwegian Cultural Heritage Site? I have no objections to such articles hitting the main page, but I draw the line at pornography and I've had emails from people saying that they agree with me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I agree that there should at least be an option to block all known text or images that would widely be considered "inappropriate," but under current policy I think you're fighting a losing battle. Unless you change the policy, you have no argument for changing the content of the front page. —Bzweebl— ^talk 00:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the "Did you know..." section for april fools seems very... er... penis-centric? "urinals", "sea urchin sperm", "red hot penises", plus apparently a joke about anuses. In past years it has usually been light-hearted stuff, not smutty toilet jokes. 173.77.255.64 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Don't worry, there's a vagina on the way, I think. To all the front page editors: you've done a great job today. 00:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

• Right, we are not a bunch of male chauvinist pigs here obsessed only with penises, the vagina stuffs will do the neutralizing job. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there is a joke about anuses, I saw it more as a (very funny) joke about Anal retentiveness. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ding ding ding, that's how it was meant. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Side question... do sea urchins have penises? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately not. I weep for their females. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• So only two penises. Shame. Somehow I always thought sea urchins had little pricks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I grew out of toilet humour many years ago, and have never seen it as a part of April Fools Day. We've let puerility take over Wikipedia. If we really must have April Fools Day material, do grow up and be a little cleverer. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Settle down, HiLo. You got one hook with a penis, and one with "anal". Out of nine. I wish we had a fart DYK today. Feel free to reread the prologue to "The Miller's Tale" at your leisure. Or write a whole bunch of funny articles with hooks that are appropriate for April Fool's Day, which is a beloved tradition even if frowned upon by parsons and monks and maybe even pardoners. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Puerile DYK and OTD: no wonder there are complaints every year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, how is OTD puerile? —howcheng {chat} 04:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sandy, you didn't like the fish? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • +1 Sandy! I never thought I'd find myself in agreement with you, but I am! Maybe this should be the last year (hint) that we should consider doing this...  BarkingFish  11:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Drmies - in the right context, I will even use toilet humour myself. April Fools Day is not such a context. If we must celebrate it here, we should seek higher standards. Defending toilet humour in this context classifies you poorly. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there ever were an occasion for toilet humor, this might be it. Then again, the wife of Bath and other authorities could tell you that penises (and anuses) are used outside the toilet as well. As for your classification of me, I feel like you are oppressing me, though I applaud your use of the gerund, even if it works to personify an act whose context you imposed on it. That it could be a subject of a sentence like this, I'll leave that for others. Please pretend to respect my opinion as much as you demand respect of yours. Doing otherwise reflects poorly on you. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to be a well-cultured person and enjoy prurient humor, they're not mutually exclusive. If you tried a little harder, you could probably sound even a little more pompous than you already do; there are ways to express your opinion on the matter while leaving room for disagreement. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is this--I saw Peter pepper and its hook in the queue and I wished I had looked closer at the prose. Can someone who knows the MOS for opening sentences with Latin names etc. have a look at the article? I'm not sure if it's correct--and someone with a sharp eye might see things I didn't. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I've got no problem with legitimate encyclopaedic facts being communicated in the form of puerile humour, particularly if the plan is to confine it to a specific time of year. My problem is if or when we cross the line between low brow double entendre and outright false statements. I don't think we've done that at DYK so far today (although I'd be happier if the bolded "fish" were capitalised). —WFC— 03:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's just hope that this is the last year that this tedious and juvenile tradition is observed. Boring! Annatto (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, strongly agree. It's quite frankly nauseating. At least we didn't have any juvenile fanny scratching this year, but it's still all dicks and cocks from the Junior High Barely Legal fan brigade. RobvanderWaal (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Peter Orno's DYK has been delayed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a small problem with the 8th thing listed under "did you know" 184.57.204.9 (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's an annual tradition, albeit more gruesome this time...Jasper Deng (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what April Fools day is. Scientific Alan 2 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the items says "a fish in a fishbowl is in a fish"--I think it's supposed to say "a fish in a fishbowl is a fish." --50.132.80.72 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Off the page now, but there was no word choice mistake. Capitalisation, on the other hand... Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We've got 5 weeks before it is upon us, so rather than the annual brouhaha over the dedication of the Main Page to silliness in honour of the date. Personally, I consider it entirely unencyclopaedic, totally disproportionate, and without parallel in any other publication that preserves ambitions of being taken seriously. I know others feel differently.

Every year recently, we have had material prepared, arguments against, defence on the grounds of past practice and on the grounds that work has gone into the preparation, confusion from readers on the day, and complaints or gratitude afterwards. Whether one is for or against the practice, the fact that it makes such a large impact on our Main Page renders it worthy of timely discussion. I hope that the subheadings I propose are helpful. I suggest that we should try to have committed ourselves one way or the other by 18th March: 3 weeks from today, 2 weeks before the fateful date. Kevin McE (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know a way to link to previous versions for comparison? Since the main page is populated by templates, I can't just browse the history to see what it looked like on April 1, 2011. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

For the reference, the discussions and pages from past years are collected at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page. As a rule of a thumb, TFA is always themed (this year we have an excellent article Pigeon photography, where the text can be written in totally serious way and it would still look like a prank - what is actually what we are trying to achieve), DYK is already collecting items that can be written in an unusual way, there has not been much of a discussion at TFP currently (though there's a funny picture every year) and ITN varies from a year to a year. Because of its nature, we cannot prepare items well in advance. Some years, the whole ITN box was filled with funny news, sometimes just with one or two uncommon and some years it keeps serious. --Tone 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• As someone who participated in promoting and writing them, I have no idea what you mean by "TFA is always themed". Today's featured article (TFA) is one article. Do you mean the rest of the mainpage is themed? TFA has nothing to do with that, and the TFA isn't even always chosen in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I expressed myself in a bad way. What I wanted to say was that in the last couple of years, we've always tried to find an article with an unusual topic or at least something where a humorous caption could be written (Ima Hogg, Museum of Bad Art, etc.). Some of these articles had been previously improved to a FA status with exactly the purpose to be featured on April 1. --Tone 14:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WOW, it is now March 18th, and for the first time this discussion was brought to the attention of the DYK/AFD page... but only because Kevin is going around saying that we can't use any DYKs that even hint at violating breaking any standards/practices that he sees as sacrosant. If this were to be a legit RFC, the pertinent talk pages should have been notified. But they weren't, were you planning on simply notifying projects two weeks before April 1 that their work was in vain? Seriously? The norm for April 1, for the past seven years has been to allow this tradition---it is accepted and now expected! Just as people know that Google and other pages will have some sort of April Fools gag they KNOW that Wikipedia will have one as well. This gets coverage as an April fools day gag in the media. PS since the affected pages have not been notified of this, I will do so.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW making a post that reads "April 1: discussion initiated" doesn't tell people what the discussion is about. There is making posts that are neutral, but then there are posts that don't say enough to convey a message. This is the later, it says nothing about what the discussion is. April 1? Unless somebody is thinking April Fools Day it means nothing. It doesn't entice any response/comment because people don't know what it is about. Oh yeah, you made the posts on the main pages, but not on any of the ones which were working on AFD, nor even to the Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool's_Main_Page. Completeness would have required your to announce it to all affected projects (which you didn't) and would have expected you to announce it to the projects most directly affected---Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool's_Main_Page and ideally subpages but you didn't. Furthermore to make the change that you want to make, it would probably need widespread (village pump and possibly Sign Post coverage as well.)--Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have already stated on a page that you have been reading, I was unaware of the AFD specific pages. The accusatory tone in this message comes very close to accusing me of lying about this, which I resent. I did post a notification on the talk page for all contributing elements. Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for dedicating whole page

April Fools' pranks are definitely not "without parallel in any other publication that preserves ambitions of being taken seriously". They have a long and noble pedigree [link removed by Art LaPella, because Malwarebytes considers it malware]. They are harmless fun and teach people the value of scepticism.

Of course, Wikipedia should aspire to more than just creating surreal front-page content. Being transparently daft misses the point. It would be good to have items in the different front page boxes that come together to effect a single hoax. --FormerIP (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that pranks are without parallel: I was referring to dedication of the whole front page to it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been highly critical of the implementation of April Fool's Day in the past, but I see nothing wrong with the basic concept. Contrary to FormerIP's comment above, and the misconceptions of some users, AF day is not about perpetrating "hoaxes" on an unsuspecting public, it's about featuring articles with content that looks preposterous when summarized but is in fact accurate. All that really happens on AF day, or which should happen, is that some of the more preposterous-sounding topics are saved up to be featured on the same day, and in that regard I don't see why it should be considered any different from any of the other special days that are featured. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But April Fools' Day is about hoaxes. Just creating nonsense content or misleading blurbs or whatever is a poor substitute. Why bother in the first place? It's like inviting your family round for Christmas dinner and then telling them that, as a vegetarian atheist, you'll be serving beans on toast.--FormerIP (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

April Fools' Day is quite widespread, and the internet has spread awareness of it. Staid and reputable institutions like the BBC celebrate it. I suspect a lot of people look at our Main Page on April Fools' Day specifically to see what we've done for it - do the stats show an uptick on that day? I am not aware that we have ever peddled misinformation, and I think we would both disappoint our readers and take ourselves way too seriously if we didn't continue to have weird and wonderful and hard to believe stuff in all the Main Page sections on April 1, especially Did You Know and Featured Article. Wife selling (English custom) can serve as a model - it's incredible but true. We didn't hoodwink the readers with that FA, we gave them a good chortle over something encyclopedic. This isn't Britannica. We aren't limited to the safe, boring information and those who like their Main Page devoid of shocks can have it back on April 2 - just as those of us who don't observe Christmas got our Main Page back on December 26. WP:NOTPAPER. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We absolutely have peddled misinformation, including hoaxes (e.g. an announcement that Britannica has acquired Wikipedia). We've tried to move away that (in favor of "incredible but true" content), but more and more outright nonsense has been slipping through.

I see no reason not to include unusual subjects (provided that the articles meet our normal criteria, another area in which we've sometimes failed). It's fine if a subject inherently seems unbelievable, but going out of our way to manufacture bizarre blurbs seems forced, unfunny and unprofessional. —David Levy 17:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Britannica hoax and European toilet paper holder, 2005 is the middle ages in internet time. I think even the most anti-AF editors can admit that we've cleaned up our act a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

David Levy and Crisco, could you both please clarify where these "hoaxes" occurred? TFA has always been written in a way that it is not intentionally inaccurate. I'm a bit concerned here that TFA is getting tarnished by some other brush than recent facts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

2005. See Signpost coverage. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to TFA. ITN and DYK are the sections in which most of the problems have arisen, along with edits to Main Page itself. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I acknowledged above that "we've tried to move away that". It hasn't been that bad in a while, but we can do much better than we have in recent years. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• To summarize the Signpost article, for about 12 hours we had "today's featured nihilarticle" which was a hoax. That was April 1, 2005. Agreed with David, we're doing better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe we're doing boringer. I fail to see what's wrong with a hoax FA. FormerIP (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When it appears on the front page of a website "that anyone can edit", it sends the message that "any article could be a hoax" (and encourages users to edit the encyclopedia accordingly). —David Levy 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because that's not how people respond to April Fools' jokes. It just sends the message that, on April 1, the FA could be a hoax. Which is a perfectly OK message. Is there evidence that it has an effect on the editing of WP. Did we go mad for a day in 2005? --FormerIP (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because that's not how people respond to April Fools' jokes.

As I noted, when someone visits Google or YouTube and finds an April Fools' Day joke, they know that it's the joke for that year. Wikipedia is different. "Anyone can edit" it, so if the featured article is a hoax, who knows what else is?

Is there evidence that it has an effect on the editing of WP. Did we go mad for a day in 2005?

Many administrators certainly did. It used to be pandemonium, with random pranks turning up all over the place (even in system messages).

If admins didn't know better, it's safe to assume that many other editors didn't either. And why should they have? The main page showcases examples of how to contribute. Placing nonsense there is an invitation to do so throughout the encyclopedia (if only on 1 April). —David Levy 04:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure having or not having a "joke" Main Page will affect the behaviour of admins and experienced users - there'll be pranks either way. Your point applies to a certain limited subset of newbies; I would suggest that the "it's April Fools so let's vandalize no matter what" group is larger, but YMMV. Also, the featured article isn't a hoax, it's just something a bit more "quirky". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure having or not having a "joke" Main Page will affect the behaviour of admins and experienced users - there'll be pranks either way.

They were significantly more prevalent in the past. FormerIP wants us to return to that (on the basis that the current approach is "boringer").

Your point applies to a certain limited subset of newbies;

No, it really doesn't. If someone sees nonsense on the front page of a website that "anyone can edit", it's downright reasonable for him/her to interpret it as an invitation to join in the fun.

I would suggest that the "it's April Fools so let's vandalize no matter what" group is larger, but YMMV.

This is entirely possible, but there isn't much that we can do about that. We can, however, avoid encouraging vandalism.

Also, the featured article isn't a hoax, it's just something a bit more "quirky".

Indeed, and I've noted in this discussion that I see no problem with that. I'm addressing FormerIP's suggestion that we make it a hoax instead. —David Levy 05:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an established tradition of running articles that look like hoaxes but aren't. Actually running a hoax that is a hoax would be doubly deceptive. And for no particular purpose. The content and the interest garnered by it would be of no use to anyone by the 2nd. Worse, people not aware of, or not familiar with April 1st traditions in general, instead of being surprised by a quirky article, would actually be deceived by intentionally false information.

(That last drawback could be solved by making the hoax so obvious that even a child could spot it, but what would be the point in that? That'd just be tiresome.) APL (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't understand why some editors assume that every culture observes April Fools' Day (and therefore expects false information). I wonder how they would feel about similar behavior on 28 December. —David Levy 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be absolutely perfect for Spanish Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedias are divided by language, not by culture. The Wikipedias in question are written for anyone who reads English/Spanish (regardless of heritage and location), many of whom are from cultures in which these prank days aren't observed. —David Levy 04:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I could be completely wrong, but didnt last years page have a link to the april fools page? or could we do something like SOPA, where if you want it normal, just disable cookies? Libertarians Will Rule (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Rickrolling proposal

A proposal: What if this year we rickroll the public - like make the featured article whatever genuine FA is ready to go, and then make the link to the Wikipedia page on RickRolling? It's a great shoutout to all the teens out there that Wikipedia is still a cool place on the same wavelength as the younger generations that's up to date with latest memes internet-age memes etc. May pull in some of the younger demographic. If the idea gave me a bit of a chuckle, I'm sure it will make 'em laugh too, which is the main point of April Fool's Day - joyful misdirection.--Coin945 (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but I can't tell whether that's a serious suggestion or a parody. —David Levy 04:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually being quite serious. May have said it in a slightly casual way but I think the concept behind it is a good one.--Coin945 (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your message came across as less serious before you edited it (after I posted the above reply).

It still seems odd that you're citing an old (and tired) gag as an example of being "up to date with the latest memes". —David Levy 05:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I do have to agree with you on that one. Rickrolling is very dated now... I'm not sure why I said that.....--Coin945 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, we agreed long ago to restrict our main page April foolery to the "strange but true" variety (i.e. humor stemming from the fact that the content seems fake but actually is real). This certainly qualifies as "joyful misdirection", but without lying. —David Levy 05:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am very aware of Wikipedia's long history in the strange but true for April Fool's Day. I noticed the heavy debate going on above and thought I'd pitch my own idea, breaking away from the norm a bit. Didn't mean to break tradition or anything (:P). Perhaps I'll reserve judgement until others comment on this proposal, but I can certainly see your justification for not deviating from the norm.--Coin945 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't mean to fault you for making a suggestion in good faith. But given the relevant history (including major controversy when actual hoaxes were posted in our earlier years, which led to the "strange but true" compromise), it's unlikely that there would be consensus for such an approach. —David Levy 05:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, as a 14 year old, wouldn't a Skyrim, or creeper(from minecraft, or the main one if there is one) article would be a better meme joke. What do you think? Libertarians Will Rule (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for maintaining standards and style of any other day

I agree strongly with the proposer's argument. It's not a joke any more; it's seriously disruptive to have this silliness thing. Many international readers are unaware of the culturally centric meaning of April Fool's Day; for that reason alone, it should have been disregarded after the first time, years ago, when it might have been a little hoot. Now we've grown up. Last time I looked, other websites and publishers—especially those that expect to be taken seriously—don't go for repeated, predictable, yearly indulgence in this unfunny practice. Tony (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

When these discussions are held, people invariably cite April Fools' Day jokes occurring elsewhere. In particular, Google usually is mentioned.
Well, Wikipedia isn't Google, and the context isn't the same. Google's credibility isn't widely challenged. Google creates separate, easily recognizable entities that don't call into question the integrity of its search results. (Some of its other websites, such as YouTube, behave similarly.) The public can point to one special section/element of the site, with the understanding that it's "this year's joke".
This isn't so with Wikipedia. Many already perceive Wikipedia as untrustworthy. When we condone April foolery on the main page, it sends the message to readers and editors alike that we condone it within the encyclopedia as well. Because "anyone can edit", there's no expectation of demarcation (e.g. "this year's joke", clearly separate from everything else), regardless of how much effort is invested in the special content's organization. ("If this nonsense is on the main page, it could be anywhere." / "Cool, I'll add some gags too!") We make Wikipedia itself come across as a joke.
In recent years, we've sought to place "strange but true" content on the main page for 1 April. I appreciate these efforts, but the results seem to have steadily declined in quality. More and more, we've been setting aside the various sections' rules, thereby contradicting our pledge to not compromise their normal standards. In many instances, the wordings used have gone far beyond "misleading due to intentional ambiguity", instead landing at "outright lies". And now FormerIP suggests that we attempt to perpetrate an actual hoax. (What a great way to improve Wikipedia's reputation for reliability.)
As noted above, April Fools' Day isn't a worldwide observance, nor is it universally enjoyed within the countries in which it's recognized. Many people would very much appreciate a serious encyclopedia on 1 April. The foolery will be widely available elsewhere. —David Levy 15:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about AF day being misused for "gags" (usually bad ones) and other nonsense, however, again I see this as a quality control problem, not a problem with the concept itself. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The endeavor's quality control seems to have sharply declined in recent years. And even when we've managed to meet our goal, I'm not confident that this is clear to readers. We know that the main page's content is "strange but true", but it comes across as nonsense (and likely encourages the addition of actual nonsense to the encyclopedia). In my view, this is not in Wikipedia's best interests.
I don't oppose the selection of unusual topics (particularly for TFA and TFP), but I believe that we should abandon the idea of deliberately incorporating misleading wording (which has been leaning more and more toward outright falsehoods). —David Levy 16:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example of these falsehoods, and where they occurred? To my knowledge, it has never been the case at WP:TFA-- or at least not since I've been around. I can't speak for DYK, or ITN, or OTD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to TFA. ITN and DYK are the sections in which most of the problems have arisen, along with edits to Main Page itself. I can find some examples when I have the time. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry; as long as it's clear that it's not TFA we're talking about, you need not take time to find examples. I'm aware there are/were problems in other areas, which is unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Many people^[who?] would very much appreciate a serious encyclopedia on 1 April." Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to use the encyclopedia for normal purposes that day. Some of our past April Fools' Day main page content has conveyed (albeit unintentionally) "Today is Nonsense Day! Feel free to vandalize articles, and don't expect an actual encyclopedia until tomorrow." —David Levy 02:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any metrics we can look at to see whether or not David's assertion might be true? Do we have evidence that vandalism increases on April 1st? (Even if it does, I'm not sure we could validly correlate it with the Main Page content, but it would still to see the records if they exist.)

I think David is grossly overstating the impact the main page prank has on the rest of the encyclopedia. I would guess that the majority of Wikipedia's traffic comes from search engines linking directly to articles. People looking for info on a topic, who come to Wikipedia through Google, will not see the main page, and the main page has absolutely no effect on their Wikipedia experience. Even so, it would take a pretty unlikely leap of intuition for a casual user to look at the main page and decide that all of Wikipedia had become Uncyclopedia for a day.Fallingmasonry (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a danger of getting diverted onto a red herring here. David is of course free to hold an opinion on the danger of what is perceived as bad practice on the Main Page leading to bad practice elsewhere in the project, but agreement that this is a danger is not necessary for an editor to believe that a different type of hook on April 1 is a bad idea, and lack of evidence of that effect does not unvalidate that viewpoint. Kevin McE (talk) 07:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Even if there were conclusive proof that the material in question has no effect on editors' behavior, that wouldn't automatically justify its inclusion.

Some editors treat April foolery as the default and demand evidence of consensus against it. (When issuing warnings to editors who vandalised articles, I've actually encountered the argument that there's no rule explicitly forbidding joke edits on April Fools' Day.) In actuality, the onus is on those who wish to deviate from our everyday standards. —David Levy 08:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any metrics we can look at to see whether or not David's assertion might be true?

As I noted, in the days when our main page contained random nonsense on 1 April, it certainly seemed to inspire administrators to post similar/related pranks elsewhere (including system messages, templates, and the encyclopedia proper). Many of these admins either hadn't edited recently or had little/no historical involvement in these areas; they apparently saw what was occurring and decided to join in the fun.

Said behavior declined sharply when we switched to "strange but true" content, and I doubt that this was coincidental.

If admins were influenced in this manner, I see no reason to believe that other editors are less susceptible.

Do we have evidence that vandalism increases on April 1st? (Even if it does, I'm not sure we could validly correlate it with the Main Page content, but it would still to see the records if they exist.)

I don't know whether any formal analysis has occurred, but I think that it's widely acknowledged the April Fools' Day observance itself inspires a significant amount of vandalism (irrespective of whether the main page plays a role).

I think David is grossly overstating the impact the main page prank has on the rest of the encyclopedia. I would guess that the majority of Wikipedia's traffic comes from search engines linking directly to articles. People looking for info on a topic, who come to Wikipedia through Google, will not see the main page, and the main page has absolutely no effect on their Wikipedia experience.

That many users arrive at articles via search engines doesn't change the fact that many arrive via (or subsequently view) the main page. This month, it's received an average of more than 6.4 million views per day.

Even so, it would take a pretty unlikely leap of intuition for a casual user to look at the main page and decide that all of Wikipedia had become Uncyclopedia for a day.

But it isn't such a leap to infer that the insertion of some jokes is tolerated/encouraged on 1 April. I've gotten into many arguments with editors (including some administrators) who assumed this.

I reiterate that my criticism pertains primarily to outright nonsense appearing on the main page (not to the basic idea of including "strange but true" material, which is the only reader-facing April Fools' Day content for which consensus has ever been established). My main concern is that inappropriate implementations (i.e. blurbs with little or no factual basis) have been slipping through. —David Levy 07:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that in recent years there has been a decline of "tomfoolery" among experienced editors, but I'm not sure that's because of a change to our approach to the Main Page, or whether both that and the changed approach to the MP are evidence of a cultural shift. I'm inclined to suggest the latter, though I have no strong evidence either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that both have occurred; a cultural shift preceded our change in approach, which then influenced the behavior of copycats (editors who historically lacked involvement in the advance planning and simply imitated what they found). "We have stuff like that on the main page, so why are you picking on me?" ceased to be a valid argument, and attempts to expand or one-up specific main page gags (e.g. by duplicating fictitious claims elsewhere or inventing ones even more absurd) vanished. —David Levy 23:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Reasons for maintaining standards" is a misleading subject heading (and such is the problem of poorly formulated RFC's). There has never been an April Fools TFA that was substandard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have made several replies that are specific to TFA, but this discussion involves all 5 daily MP elements. Maybe it has not been the case with TFA (where the main April 1 criticisms have revolved around taste and decency), but there have undoubtedly been hooks in at least some of the other sections written on April 1 that have deliberately obscured the facts that they purport to communicate, and that is not the standard that those sections normally aspire to. If you wish to propose a different section heading, feel free. Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

TFA is part of the mainpage. TFA does not lower standards. The subject heading is misleading. I have been vaguely aware of some problems with other mainpage entries, but want to be sure we're not tarring TFA with that brush. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We're discussing the main page as a whole, not implying that every section has been problematic in the past. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I disagree with the suggestion that TFA has not clearly mislead. I presume we're referring to the blurb, since AFAIK, the problem is limited to the main page (and this page is about the main page). The articles themselves are usually up to whatever standard is normal. (For DYK, I presume it's often higher since they have more time to work on them and they likely get more attention.)

And if we look at the blurbs, I would suggest it's rather unobvious from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2011 that the Fanny scratching was refering to the alleged scratchings of s ghost. (Note that this isn't comparable to a case like George Washington.)

Similar with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2009, it says "prompt viewers to appeal loudly for divine intervention". By checking out the our version [2], I can only presume this is referring to 'the art must have an "Oh my God" quality', but I think it's quite questionable whether the former is an accurate summation (for most people, saying oh my god ins uch a context clearly isn't going to be a genuine appeal for divine intervention).

Similarly Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008, mentions her being a 'ostrich jockey' and then goes on to mention how she rode to Haiwaii. It's not clear to me what the 'rode to Hawaii' bit is referring to even having read the article [3] (she went to Hawaii sure, but I'm not sure how she 'rode' there, perhaps part of the journey involved a horse but this isn't mentioned which it shouldn't be since it seems beyond trivial). But besides that, while there is a story about her and ostriches, AFACT she wasn't an ostrich jockey It seems all she did was mount one once due to a challenge from one of her brothers. I presume the manner of her fathers death is accurate but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article on her at all (it just mentions he dies) and even the article on her father just says he died as a result of railroad accident. Also while the wikilink may clarify what is meant by the 'doctor', it seems highly likely to mislead in the context without hovering over the link. (It's often controversial whether or not to refer to someone who only has an honourary doctorate as a 'doctor', and it doesn't seem clear that the subject herself even referred to herself as one. And definitely saying someone was a future doctor, who nursed three family members early in life would strongly suggest they were a medical doctor.) The same with saying she lived in government housing when we are referring to the governors mansion.

And from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2007 our article [4], doesn't seem to say 'and the nominator forgot to tell him about it'. It may have been a joke nominator and if so, perhaps GW was never made aware of it, but that doesn't mean the nominator forgot to tell him, there's a fair chance the nominator intentionally did not tell him.

And from 2008 to 2011 (I didn't check earlier then 2007), including Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2010 (which I didn't mention before because it doesn't have anything which I noticed that's likely to mislead, I think it's questionable whether any of these adequately summarise the article, which we normally do an okay job of since the blurb is a reworked WP:LEDE. E.g. 2011 I don't need to say more. 2010 doesn't mention the legal situation. 2009 isn't too bad but because it aims to be funny, it still features somewhat trivially things (as basically all the blurbs do) compared to a better summary. Similarly 2008 fails to properly mention her support, work and restoration of antiques, her philantrophy (it seems clear she did a lot more then giving away her sibling's stuff) and her musical interests and work. I excluded 2007 because it isn't too bad although as with 2009 it tends to the trivial (a probably joke nomination for president he may not have even been aware of).

I'm not complaining about these examples. Personally it's not something I really care about. But even if DYK etc are worse (I don't know if this is true or not), it seems clear the TFA blurb is also misleading and doesn't follow the normal standards of summarising the article in whatever space is available.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of these blurbs. The "fanny scratching" gag was particularly unfortunate, given the meaning of the word "fanny" in British English (which the British editors who proposed the wording, but not all of the American editors who supported it, knew) and its application to a child (until Raul was informed of the UK connotation and removed it).

But yes, some of the items appearing at ITN and DYK have been far worse. Editors of those sections have linked to articles not meeting the usual criteria, sometimes via gags invented out of whole cloth (i.e. not even inspired by the articles' content). Franky, it's embarrassing. —David Levy 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Although this discussion mainly concerns the main page, since people are concerned about other parts of the encylopaedia, you may be interested in Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2011, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2010, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2008, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2007, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2006, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2005. Most of this happens in parts outside the encylopaedia proper like user pages and xFDs. (Well there is a lot of stuff in articles, but I think we prefer not to memorialise it.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• TFA foolishness: considerable editorial resources went into making Ima Hogg an FA for the fool thing. I was very uncomfortable about the sexist implications. A non-native English-speaking reader in India or Nigeria would have wondered "what the ..."??? Many native English-speakers must have thought it was weird. We just embarrass ourselves by doing this kind of thing. And meanwhile we leave DYKs as ghost towns as soon as they've had their airing on the MP. Let's allocate our resources better now we've grown up. Tony (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

All that April Fools Day jokes do here is provide what we in Australia call smartarses an opportunity to show how clever (they think) they are, while obviously upsetting a lot of people. They are of no benefit whatsoever to a serious encyclopadia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "smartarse" is an especially Aussie term, but in Home and Away they always used to use the term "tryhard", which I took to mean that someone was over-conformist at the expense of ever doing anything interesting. --FormerIP (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's good to know that our major cultural exports are having such a positive educational effect. I'd say you're close to the tryhard definition. Maybe just add that the tryhard is sometimes aiming for a non-conformist image, while not being that way inclined in the slightest. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Im new to this sorta stuff, so please forgive my poor formatting. I just felt that I should point out, in the vein of 'Not every country has April Fools Day' that not every country have the same day/time. For instance, as an Australia, I didn't notice any changes until late Sunday night (here April fools traditionally ends at midday) and then coming to wikipedia this morning, Monday the 2nd of April, the page is still covered in nonsence. You cannot argue that people will realise it's April Fools when due to the shifts in time around the world, a lot of this didn't actually appear on April first for a significant number of users.

(talk) 0957, 2 April 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.152.253 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Compromise proposals

• FWIW Do an april fools day FA, leave ITN, DYK and on this day unchanged. Banner the joke FA page to clearly label it as such. Remember this is en.wikipedia.org and most en countries have a clue about April fools day. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A "Joke FA PAge"? I don't believe that Wikipedia has ever done that. Certainly not in recent years.

The April fools' FA's are real articles about things that appear to be jokes but are completely real. (Perhaps with a few key sentences omitted from the summary that would have made that clear, but ideally not.) APL (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• We had the European toilet paper holder in 2005. That was marked as a hoax, but you had to understand German to know that it was marked as such. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Who is "we"? Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2005, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2006, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2007, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2009, etc. There has never been a "joke" FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We is the English Wikipedia as a whole. An examination of the edit history shows that the addition was not through the normal TFA promotion process but by an impromptu reworking of the Main page code.[5] There are a whole series of similar Main page "tweaks" that occurred in April 2005. If memory serves, the "tweaks" even included modifying the control files on Meta to relabel the tab names used by the Monobook skin. --Allen3 ^talk 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Allen3; that's hard to follow, but again, not part of TFA, just for the record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The blurb is rewritten in a completely different, more joke-like way. compare the original blurb for George Washington to the shorter, lighter, more humorous one. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at 2k11 and it was fanny scratching in London for FA. Very funny. The DYK on the other hand, at least for me, was annoying. I clicked Rudyard Kipling and I find out, ha ha, the SS Rudyard Kipling is at the bottom of the sea. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Which was the whole point of the exercise. So, you clicked on the link, and it too you somewhere other than where you were expecting to be taken. Hopefully you will have read the article and learnt something new. Mjroots (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, why would anyone type "2k11" when "2011" uses the same number of keystrokes and is not wilfully obscure? 46.208.182.143 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW2 how about building an april fools main page and linking to it from April 1st from the "On this date" section. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Lighten up, Francis!

Yes, some of the DYK jokes end up seeming stupid. Yes, some people have a serious problem with being, well, too serious. My suggestion? Relax, have fun and roll with the jokes. Doing so will not make our image or "credibility" problems any worse. The rest of the world has a sense of humour, no reason why we can't. Resolute 15:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed on the claim that "Doing so will not make our image or "credibility" problems any worse. I, and many with me seriously believe that it does. /81.170.148.21 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed no the claim that it will hurt our credibility. I believe the fact that all our April Fools articles are true, and not hoaxes actually makes us look more credible in the eyes of the public. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Absolute nonsense. Content in articles needs citations, opinions on talk pages don't. Kevin McE (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

plz don t do the april fools day thing again it looks very very unprofessional. --anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.173.109 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of the irony inherent in your post? --Khajidha (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed that it does make image worse. Unless you think annual April Fools jokes by other major outlets, such as Google, hampers their credibility, I am not buying it with respect to Wikipedia. Resolute 18:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The onus is on those who advocate deviation from our everyday standards to demonstrate that it's a prudent course of action.

Note that I'm referring primarily to the most extreme examples (some of which would be considered vandalism on any other day), not to the idea of showcasing "strange but true" content.

I addressed the Google comparison (which invariably arises) above. —David Levy 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ever notice that the phrase "the onus is on me" has never been uttered? It is always seen to be on the other guy. Interesting sociological note, there. 149.149.50.21 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lists

Thanks to User:Kevin McE for notifying the list folks. We won't be running on 1 April as we have but one slot a week, but we wish the rest of the main page luck in resolving the perennial issues. Having said that, we may be able to stand a better chance of being involved in this next year if we could expand to, say, two featured list slots a week...?! Just putting it out there (and yes, before you descend like wolves, this isn't the right forum, I'm sure) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK

For DYK, April Fool's Day is a year-round project. The contents currently under consideration for DYK on April 1, 2012, are at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. If people have objections to anything that's under consideration, please comment now, rather than holding your complaints until these items are already on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Or waiting 3 weeks for the arbitrary deadline the nominator posed above to announce to any of the projects that this discussion was ongoing...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Simply not true. Desist from this line of accusation. I waited to see what sort of consensus emerged before referring to that consensus in the more specific discussions. Kevin McE (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevin,

I nominated Peter Orno and John Rainwater last April. This weekend, when you arrived full of righteous zeal (which may indeed be righteous), was the first I had heard about this discussion. In retrospect, couldn't you admit that it would have been better to alert that page, as Balloonman suggested. "Desist from this line of accusation" seems a bit defensive.

As I noted there, your comments have led to improvements in both articles and to the DYK hooks, which I trust now are consistent with year-round DYK guidelines.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You were also party to the discussion in which I admitted that I did not know of that page. I cannot admit that I should have done something that I did not have the knowledge to do. If I had been aware of that page, I'm sure I would have done: it's unfortunate that it is not on the DYK template, which would have drawn my attention to it. However, once somebody has been told why something did not happen, to then continue to berate the person for not doing it is purposeless, and indeed something from which they should desist. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us" sometimes is tough for me too. Do as I say and not as I do!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, part of the problem is that even your announcement, which you made to the "talk pages" of SOME of the pages involved in MP/AFD was so vague as to be meaningless. "April 1: Discussion initiated" doesn't say anything and gets overlooked. You have to give people the gist of what the discussion is about.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I just found this discussion through the notice on the DYK page. I initially assumed the April Fool's Day DYK was for facts that are rather odd, surprising, or seemingly absurd. That is the type of thing I would support - it's lighthearted but not inaccurate. It could be worded in a way that appears misleading, but on close inspection is not. Basically, a casual reader might be startled by the reading, but if they look closer they would see that it is a real fact.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember, we are trying to confuse and mislead Wikipedians and visitors, not lie to them.

I think this can be shortened to "we're trying to lie to them, not lie to them". The only way this makes any sense is if you're going to say "oh, we just misled them, that's not lying." Sounds like wikilawyering. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• The point is being missed here. It's a different story for other sections, but as far as DYK is concerned we should be doing this all year round anyway. Whatever the reason for DYK being here, its main page function is to pull readers towards reasonable articles with incredible yet entirely true facts, some of which the reader will struggle to believe. —WFC— 18:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tangential note

I do not want to wade into the middle of the argument (although, for the record, I would not object to seeing the Main Page silliness go). Instead, I want to point this out somewhere so that people will see it. The April Fools' mentality has infected article space recently. This was added to April Fools' Day last year. (I removed it myself.) The article's FAC candidacy was totally unserious, yet the FAC notice was put at the top of the article, where even notices for real FACs do not belong. No doubt most readers reacted with puzzlement and moved on, but still, the article made an apparently serious invitation for people to comment on what was, in fact, a prank. That is an example of what WP absolutely should not be doing: inserting a hoax in article space, not even waiting for the casual user to take the step behind the scenes (the step from articles to other namespaces) that is usually required to see the silly stuff we do. Even the Main Page is less a part of Wikipedia's supposed primary goal than actual articles are. Whatever is decided here, I want to ask the community not to disrupt articles for the sake of April Fools' Day. A. Parrot (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What? A single extremely minor act of vandalism? On Wikipedia? Are you sure you're right about this? --FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Right about what, exactly? I don't deny that it was minor. Certainly, regular vandals do worse than that every day. My problem is not so much with the very slight disruption it could have caused. My problem is that the prank was created by a regular editor, with Raul654's approval. Regular editors who would normally never vandalize an article decided that this prank was fine, because it was April Fools' Day. Even the most basic rules went out the window. A. Parrot (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So where does that leave us?

Not an essentially easy discussion to summarise. Maybe three main conclusions can be identified: pro, anti, and in favour of odd but not misleading. I hope I do not misrepresent anyone's argument by radically summarising them:

Unreservedly pro

• "Relax, have fun and roll with the jokes." Resolute

Anti

• "entirely unencyclopaedic, totally disproportionate" Kevin McE
• "seriously disruptive to have this silliness thing" Tony
• "provide what we in Australia call smartarses an opportunity to show how clever (they think) they are" HiLo48
• "it looks very very unprofessional" unregistered editor
• "I, and many with me seriously believe that it does [make our image or "credibility" problems any worse]" unregistered editor
• "I would not object to seeing the Main Page silliness go" A. Parrot (as an aside)

In favour of odd, not misleading

• "content that looks preposterous when summarized but is in fact accurate" Gatoclass
• "have weird and wonderful and hard to believe stuff " Yngvadottir
• "It's fine if a subject inherently seems unbelievable" David Levy

Other threads have focussed more on what has or has not happened in the past, or have proposed radically new types of April foolery. No disrespect intended to those who contributed those thoughts, but in terms of assessing the level of consent for the recent practices, these are not directly relevant. My conclusion would be that there is some appetite for selecting the extraordinary, but not the strong consensus that a deviation from normal standards would seem to require. I would be interested to see if others share this conclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Add my name to the "please keep the strange, but true tradition" going crowd. And yes, I think it is OK for blurbs to be slightly misleading (the Titanic blurb "...that in 2010, three survivors of the Titanic were rescued by the USCGC Chincoteague?" was the best ever, IMO). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I came up with that one ;-) But yes, misleading is perfectly acceptable on April Fools Day. It's the Gotchya factor... which is what APril Fools is all about. Going to a page on Tiger Woods to find out that it is about Tiger Woods (the Westminster dog) is perfect. Some people just need to let their hair down.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Implications of discussion

TFA: Personally, I am happy enough that the proposed TFA content is extraordinary in and of itself, but has not been written to obscure the subject.

TFP: Not clear that they have yet chosen which picture to go with, or what blurb is proposed for each pic. No evident plans for anything that would be considered misleading.

OTD: No new proposals since April last year: not clear that there are plans to do anything this year.

DYK: A section that drew particular criticism during the discussion above. Many hooks under consideration. The page for discussing hooks is headed by a declaration that two of the regular rules of DYK are suspended: one in terms of the date of creation, the other stating "Proper capitalization, title formatting, and linking standards, may be disregarded only if doing this will give away the joke. This should be done as little as possible." Preamble goes on to state "Remember, we are trying to confuse and mislead Wikipedians and visitors, not lie to them." This seems to me to be a mandate to mislead that is not supported by consensus above.

ITN: No current plans, and ITN pretty much opted out last year. Kevin McE (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Kevin, but before you can impose radical changes to a seven year tradition at Wikipedia, you are going to need a much wider viewing than 10 people.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

An alternative analysis of the responses would be that only one person in 3 weeks came here to defend the attitude taken at DYK. 90% of respondents are opposed to the type of deliberately misleading hook that is being encouraged at DYK/AFD. If you wish to do something radically different from the usual standards of Wikipedia in such a high profile location, you need to demonstrate extraordinary consensus. The very mixed response on and immediately after AFD every year shows that while many people like it, there is no such overwhelming consent. Kevin McE (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about this discussion until yesterday. I think the DYK should be similar to the FA - weird but true.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I in the 10%? Awesome. I would however note that our April Fool's Day layout, given how often we do it, is our "usual standards", if only for one day. — foxj 07:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding one person in three weeks stumbled upon this discussion? Sorry, but "April 1: Discussion initiated" doesn't tell anybody what the discussion is about. People see the date and think it is any number of things, they have ZERO clue that you are trying to change a 7 year long tradition. During the same three weeks how many people have contributed to the AFD pages? Sorry, six people who are not happy with a process is not enough to curtail the tradition. You are more than welcome to start an RfC, but such an RfC needs to be advertised and shared... particularly amongst the pages that have people involved.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC) PS 1 person in 3 weeks on a discussion with only 10 people is more of a sign that this discussion failed to reach any sort of quorum or had wider reception by the larger community on a change to long standing precedent.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Have an RfC, as usually done on important decisions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Flawed as this process may have been, it still shows that among those with a general interest in the Main Page (as opposed to those with invested effort in AFD content) there is little appetite for any lowering of standards, even if there is an appetite for the wacky. Wikipedia content is for its readers, not to give a platform for editors who see themselves as comedians, and Main Page content that does not serve an encyclopaedic purpose (and misleading readers deliberately is not an encyclopaedic purpose) is contrary to that most basic tenet. Kevin McE (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, among the six people who supported your view... Sorry, not buying it. If you want to make this change, you need a much wider breadth of coverage than you got here.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And, given the barrage of complaints that arise on and after every AFD, where are you going to demonstrate that the consensus does exist for what DYK apparently intends doing, which explicitly includes misleading the reader? Kevin McE (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, changes require consensus. Despite the complaints, the DYK April Fools Day hasn't changed much in recent years. I understand your discomfort with another year of the status quo. Isn't it reasonable that an RfC is needed to make such a change? (The usually sensible Ed Johnston and Drmies haven't been heard from, and both commented on Peter Orno or John Rainwater.) Why not draft an RfC and run it ASAP, maybe in time for April 1st? Otherwise, why not run it during April 1st, when it has the most attention and participation, so it would go into effect next year?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The RfC would not be finished by April 1... while I don't feel that RfCs should be required to remain open for the full 30 days, the trend lately has been to leave all RfC's open for that length. The soonest an RfC would be finished would be 30 days after it was opened. At which point it would have to be closed by somebody other than the participants. This discussion amounts to nothing more than a straw poll with limited results and response. It is in no way binding nor does it carry much weight as it is based upon the input of very few people. (FMuch fewer people than have contributed to the various AFD pages.) Kevin's personal crusade, is borderline disruptive.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this thread isn't grounds for abandoning the main page April foolery. However, it does contain valid discussion of a problematic trend that's arisen in recent years.
When we began the "strange but true" tradition, we agreed to uphold our normal quality standards, with only minor deviations in arbitrary areas (e.g. DYK relaxing the date requirement). This is the only reader-facing April foolery for which consensus has been established (with many editors, myself included, consenting to it as a compromise between no special content and outright hoaxes).
Unfortunately, some editors (particularly those at DYK) have taken the foolery further than agreed upon, concocting blurbs that absolutely compromise our normal quality standards (and draw many of the complaints to which Kevin referred).
The concept, as Raul noted, is to select material that's inherently unusual, which astonishes or misleads readers when written in a straightforward manner. It is not to fabricate oddness/absurdity via selective wording that distorts the context, thereby misleading readers ourselves instead of delivering authentic, uncontrived information that does so naturally.
So while the tradition hasn't been overturned, we must work to ensure that it remains within the established parameters this year. There's longstanding consensus for that. —David Levy 03:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If it misleads when written in a straightforward manner, then it was never really written in a straightforward manner in the first place. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Misleading" really is a terrible word choice. We don't want to mislead readers. What we do want to do is surprise them. "Unexpected," "surprising," or "unbelievable" are all better, more accurate terms. Really, I would think this would be what all DYK hooks strive for, not just on April Fools. Obviously, not all of them will be able to surprise readers, but that should be the attempted standard.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that readers want to be surprised? Or don't you care? One thing that persistently bothers me about all this is that those who want to create the surprises are going to impose their desires on others without caring what others think. That's bullying. HiLo48 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh undoubtably some don't... some don't know hat April Fools Day is or lack a sense of humor... but in most of the Western World, which EN.WIKIPEDIA focuses on, AFD is a time honored tradition... even if you don't know what it is or practice it, it is a reality of life on April Fools Day. Online tom foolery will get coverage. Wikipedia's AFD will get coverage---generally positive---or in some cases such as Wife Swapping a few years ago by people who think it is all fabricated. Some people will complain, but some people complain about the Featured Article or various hooks. The point is, that generaly the coverage will be positive---and I suspect that if Wikipedia were to cease doing it, that it would similarly garner coverage from media outlets, but in a negative light. Which is part of the reason why the "consensus of six" is not sufficeint grounds to term the tradition at all or to allow those six to dictate terms.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, I agree that this discussion isn't grounds for abandoning the main page April foolery (which I acknowledge despite the fact that it's my personal preference). But I must take issue with a couple of your above comments:

1. It's unfair to assert that anyone opposed to the practice either "doesn't know what April Fools' Day is or lacks a sense of humor". People have different tastes, and not everyone enjoys this sort of behavior. And someone who does might not agree that Wikipedia is the appropriate venue. Please try to respect opposing views. (That's what I'm doing.)

2. The English Wikipedia is not intended to focus on the Western world (or persons therein). It's written for the benefit of anyone who reads English, a lingua franca widely spoken around the globe. There are more English speakers in India than in any other country, and I find it disheartening to see them treated as outside our "focus" (especially by an administrator). —David Levy 23:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be to treat 1 April as we do any other day, but that isn't the approach to which the community agreed.

"Mislead" probably isn't the best word. I'm referring to wording consistent with our usual style, which nonetheless could be interpreted to mean something seemingly absurd (as opposed to wording that is absurd, contrived to create ambiguity that wouldn't exist if our usual style were used).

This is neither as ordinary nor as extraordinary as some editors would prefer, which is why it proved an acceptable compromise. —David Levy 23:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Other special days

I do want to note here: Why aren't we talking about the Guitar Craft anniversary or the Baseball opening day or the Titanic disaster? These are all culturally relative holidays? If we reserved the April Fool's DYK for the simply odd, and/or worded in a odd but not inaccurate way (like Did you know... ...the muffin man?), than I see know problem with it.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I recently created this article, and it is up at DYK: "Did you know... ....that a joint musical venture between a Dutch and Indonesian band resulted in Chaos & Warfare?" This how I think an April Fool's nom should work: this example is totally accurate, is grammatically correct, and even follows DYK cap and formatting standards. Yet it still seems to be a joke, even though it isn't.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the laugh, 3family6. If you get that 5x expanded, I'd love for us to use it Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• @3family6,

I suggested that DGM's hook run on Guitar Craft's anniversary (25 March), because

(a) the hook was approved within a few weeks of 25 March,

(b) there were few other anniversaries during that month, and

(c) both DGM and Guitar Craft share the same logo, the knotwork that shall be featured on DYK 25 March.

(Our article Guitar Craft has been substantially improved and expanded in the last half year, also, but not enough to be eligible for DYK now.) Nobody has suggested that 25 March is an important world holiday or that 25 March should be again be "observed" with a Frippolous DYK hook. ;)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. One or more reviewers are needed requested to copy-edit or good-article review Discipline Global Mobile.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there is always the idea that DYKs should always try to be quirky, odd, or trivial. Isn't that part of the point of that section?--¿3family6 _contribs 18:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

AF - On This Day

I'm not sure what's happening with the rest of the April Fools preparations, but someone might want to check out this page. A few days ago I came up with a couple of ideas after a bit of research at April 1. With only a couple of days until showtime, lets get those creative juices flowing! :D--Coin945 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

are you serious? you mean were willing to put a day which calls for the destruction of israel, a sovereign state, on wikiepedia-doesn't anyone see the hate speech. Well i'd like to recommend a hitler day, maybe a gas the jews day- i know you gentiles would love to celebrate them. or maybe jews killed jesus day, thats like your favorite sermon of the year. congratulations world you are the living proof of why the State of Israel must exist.--129.98.208.176 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We also feature plenty of Jewish holidays as well as other days that certain sides may not appreciate (e.g., Serfs Emancipation Day if you're Tibetan). —howcheng {chat} 06:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

right because Jewish holidays call for the extermination of palestinian children threw suicide bombers, i forgot.--129.98.209.105 (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Howcheng already linked to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. In short, we don't make value judgements; we simply record the facts and let the readers draw their own conculsions. Information is not censored/excluded because it offends someone.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Without going into depth about the article in question (I read it; I'd say it's borderline objectionable but it's not quite as bad as our unnamed friend makes it out to be), both the reasonability rule and editorial discretion seem like valid arguments against certain things being on the main page. True enough, we have the "this FA is offensive" argument once a month, and while I rarely voice an opinion (because it's a foregone conclusion), I am supportive of not censoring Wikipedia; on the other hand, certain things don't seem to get put on the main page, and for good reason. I doubt you'd see Third Reich holidays listed on OTD even though without a doubt some people still endorse them. Ditto for certain racial slurs. So yes, I'd say we do make value judgements, for good reason. On this specific topic, I'm not sure I'd outright object to this, but I also can't imagine NOT objecting if a holiday celebrating 9/11 were listed on the main page under the guise of NOP, and I can certainly see why Land Day would piss of Israelis something fierce. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the liberty to say what you want does not provide the privilege of a particular soapbox from which to say it. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If we omit Land Day, we open ourselves to charges of anti-Arab/Palestinian bias. However, even if Land Day were not an annual observance, the original March 29, 1976 protest would certainly be notable enough to qualify for inclusion in OTD. Besides, the article says nothing about people calling for the complete destruction of Israel (I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that there is no mention of such activity in the article). Lastly, I feel compelled to point out that Quds Day is even worse in terms of its anti-Israel stance, and that usually gets included every year (except last year, when I couldn't figure out what day it was). —howcheng {chat} 17:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there is some element of how it's presented. For example, I would not see anything remotely objectionable about listing Kristallnacht on OTD as a historical date. It's beyond question that it is a historically significant event that is worth remembering. But would putting a holiday dedicated to that event on the OTD header be a wise choice? I'm not directly comparing Land Day with Kristallnacht, but just making an example that unambiguously illustrates my point. I suspect there would have been no objection on this talk page if it were listed by date rather than the holiday. Finally, reading the article doesn't give me an immediate answer as to why an Israeli would find it objectionable, but I've known quite a few Israelis as friends and I can well imagine what the realistic context over there probably is and why it would irritate them to see it listed as a holiday. Not saying we should omit it, but I'm not even slightly surprised that it's controversial. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a valid analogy, really, as Land Day observes a day when Arab Palestinians were victims, whereas Germany was the aggressor in Kristallnacht, but if the Nazis had won the war and Germany had a national holiday now commemorating it, I assume we'd have it listed. —howcheng {chat} 20:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a direct analogy, I just couldn't think of another example for what I'm talking about that is equally well known and equally unambiguous as to how people would feel about it. I can understand both sides of this discussion. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean the Israeli side, the Palestinian side, and the neutral side? Oh, whoops, that makes three sides. Let's aim for the latter. The day IS commemorated. We certainly have a right, even a duty, to document that. No need to takes "sides". HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean to say that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and not a vehicle for the propagation of the Israeli/zionist narrative? Who knew! 24.94.44.201 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Even Kristallnacht was supposedly done because of an act committed by a Jew against a German. And if the Nazis were still around, and had a national holiday surrounding it, they could argue that it commemorates the day when the Nazis fought back against mistreatment by the Jews. We could then argue that we are merely reporting how the Nazis celebrate the holiday without endorsing the Nazis' belief that the Jews did anything bad on that day, and point out that we feature Jewish holidays as well. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a "free speech" issue. No one has asserted that Wikipedia must serve as anyone's soapbox. It's a matter of complying with our own editorial standards (under which we don't suppress information on the basis that some people find it upsetting). —David Levy 23:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh well. Saruman IV (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I unreservedly endorse Land Day's inclusion. (For the record, I'm Jewish.) Any observance meeting our normal criteria should be included, regardless of who finds it objectionable. —David Levy 23:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Much complaint about the few penis and vagina jokes. No complaint about the lethal injection execution (article turns out to be about not-a-human, so it does not count?), only a single complaint about the brief hint of domestic violence ("kill their spouses", gone now) -- and no complaint at all in these directions by those complaining hard and long against the sex-related jokes. One wonders about priorities. - Tenebris 11:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing here. It's not about priorities. It's about this being an encyclopedia and this kind of in-house ho-ho simply not being appropiate. I complained about cocks and dicks because that's what I immediately noticed. Do you really imagine that I have time to read through all this juvenile nonsense? If I had noticed frivolous stuff about lethal injections and so on I would have complained about that as well. I happen to be a huge fan of South Park and I am amused by its crude toilet humour. I have also opposed the death penalty and actively championed human rights issues all my long life. There is nothing wrong with my priorities and I don't need lectures and insinuations from fellow editors concerning my perfectly valid objections to this pathetic legalised Anglocentric vandalism of Wikipedia that takes place every April 1st, and which last year hit new standards of indecency and cringing inappropiateness that would never sully South Park. RobvanderWaal (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I must admit I never thought to see a South Park mention in this context after the Anal Probe Controversy.

It takes longer to write a post of that length than it does to read a front page linked article -- but apparently time to write does not correspond to time to read.

And finally, I mentioned no names. But if you insist the hat fits ...? - Tenebris 12:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.135 (talk)

You don't know psychology. Conservatism is the result of society-imposed and state-sponsored sexual repression. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Read The Illuminatus Trilogy. The Hodge-Podge Principle applies. What do anti-porn crusaders on Wikipedia have in common with those who gratuitously focus on bawdy jokes? Yup - obsession with sex. Around and round, from one "side" to the other, each not realizing that it is marching in step with the other. When people stop trying to censor Wikipedia, they'll stop seeing so much that they want to censor; but if they continue being more and more forward about it, the site will dive deeper and deeper into juvenalia a.k.a. adult material. Wnt (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Persons who choose to make offensive remarks (now deleted) should have the courage of their convictions and be 'persons and not IP numbers.' (original The Prisoner reference).

WP should attempt to intrigue and puzzle people into reading further (Biblical quote - people running around and knowledge being increased?)

And, finally a reference to Samuel Johnson - when someone said that they were glad he had not included any 'inappropriate words' in his dictionary responded to the effect that 'Well, #you# chose to look them up.' Jackiespeel (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

2 April on this day should mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.187.1 (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Too bad that the World Autism Awareness Day page is not in good enough shape to put on the main page. --70.31.8.76 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to see the discussion above actually leaning towards shelving April Fools off of Wikipedia. Might be the best thing that's ever happened to the site. Bugger me. Wonders will never, ever, cease :)  BarkingFish  02:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You've misremembered the comment's context; it was unrelated to April Fools' Day. I've never been fond of the main page April foolery (though I'm among those who agreed to the "strange but true" compromise"). —David Levy 02:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I have misremembered the context. Post amended/reworded, sorry David.  :)  BarkingFish  11:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree to any compromise. We should not have April Fools Day material on Wikipedia at all. It's simply not encyclopaedic, and it's imposing one set of cultural values on the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the very fact that we choose to communicate on this particular encyclopedia in English also an imposition of cultural values on the rest of the world?--WaltCip (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, because Wikipedia is available in several different languages.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm yet to see April Fools Day Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It exists, and is called Uncyclopedia GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, DYK has prepared April Fools material, as it takes care to cultivate suitable material all year long. As far as I know, TFA will feature a "strange but true" article on pigeon photography, although it won't be treated as a joke so much as just something unusual. I don't believe ITN or OTD are doing anything and I don't know what TFP have planned. TFL isn't running on that day so it can't do anything but I believe The Rambling Man had expressed a desire to run something humorous. Could be wrong on that though. GRAPPLE X 06:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Both OTD and TFP have themed content selected. —howcheng {chat} 08:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

although it won't be treated as a joke so much as just something unusual. - on the contrary, when we've done such things in the past (Museum of Bad Art, Wife Selling), we've gotten lots and lots of people asking on the talk page if it's real or a joke. They honestly can't tell. That, as far as I'm concerned, is the money shot :) Raul654 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

April Fools' Day is a secular and non-political observation widely celebrated throughout the world. I don't see anything wrong in Wikipedia's celebration of this day. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To say "I don't see anything wrong in Wikipedia's celebration of this day" means that you don't care anything about what others think. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, that was the conclusion drawn from the previously given rationale. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 23:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. You said "I don't see anything wrong in Wikipedia's celebration of this day." Well, several editors expressed opposition. To say you "don't see anything wrong", means you either didn't see that opposition, or care nothing for those opinions. You should never dismiss others' opinions like that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just wanted to express my opinion, not to dismiss other editors' opinions. I mistakenly used a wrong language. Sorry for that. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anything wrong in Wikipedia's celebration of this day. HiLo, I read your argument, and it does not convince me. I, as a possibly self-actualized and modestly well-read person, having taken into account all the arguments that were presented to me, even the most puritan ones, do not see anything wrong in Wikipedia's celebration of this day. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So you really don't see anything AT ALL wrong in doing something that a lot of people here don't want? That's an incredibly selfish position to take. Maybe we're losing something in the language here between cultures, and I really don't think you're as selfish as the words you're using suggest, but that's the way it reads to me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I didn't make myself clear: English is not my first language. Yes, I don't--but that is mainly because I disagree with your basic premise, that "a lot of people here won't want [this dedication to April Fools Day]". Maybe I'm selfish--or maybe there is no evidence for your premise. I haven't seen any. I have seen evidence of interest in the matter, the articles, the hooks, and of the high number of viewer hits such articles receive. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, based upon the stances I've seen you take where you want to do something "that a lot of people here don't want" I find it pretty ironic.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not even what the phrase "I don't see anything wrong with ________" means, it isn't dismissive of others opinions it is expressive of one's own opinion that there is nothing wrong with _________. It is the equivalent of "I don't believe there is anything wrong with __________".--Khajidha (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I am in agreement to show joke April blurbs, I partially disagree with your comment, as it seems like you suggest every religious and "political" feast day has no place in Wikipedia. If there were any religious feast days for every (organized) religion we would also celebrate it. But unfortunately there is none such. I would never support April Fool's Day on Wikipedia if it wasn't international. This is exactly why we show it; because it is international, but not because it is non-religious or non-political. Regards.GoP_T^C_N 14:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, WP:TFL won't be running on April Fools' Day, and our closest main page exposure will be List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft. Hardly ""humorous". We'd very much like to avoid any unnecessary negativity about our mini-section of the main page! Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I think this year's April Fools' Main Page is a step in the right direction, by not including jokes in ITN and not rewording TFA to make it silly and misleading (it helps that the subject is interesting and funny enough). Although I still think OTD shouldn't be subject to jokes, mainly because this makes it the only day of the year that is never serious. I'll be sure to argue my case in advance next year. Thanks Wikipedia. AdamSommerton (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Next year isn't the time to have the discussion. Any such decision to change a 7 year tradition or to regulate it differently, needs to occur sooner rther than later.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

One thing - "... that Ralph Dewey (pictured) blows up animals for Jesus?" seems threatening to me, as a Christian. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

But it's true: he really does blow up animals for Jesus. --Carnildo (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Keep in mind the date too ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. :/ ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that when this page is viewed in Firefox (on a mac) instead of "Main Page" it says "Shut Up." Also, the picture for the featured image is of a toilet instead of the barnacle. Is this some kind of April Fools' Day joke? It doesn't show up on Chrome. TheThingy ^Talk_Website 00:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that the website that you are viewing is really Wikipedia? I am using Firefox and I see the standard content, and besides, even on April Fool's day there would not be such a mainpage as that. Shirudo talk 05:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that the initial comment above was an April Fools gag--¿3family6 _contribs 13:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

April fools! TheThingy ^Talk_Website 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Too late! --70.31.8.76 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to take a moment to say "Good Work!" to the folk that put yesterday's main page together. I think wikipedia's tradition of entries that look like hoaxes but aren't is a good one for an educational organisation, and this year's was an excellent example. Even the DYKs were provoking without stretching to the point of falsehood. APL (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Seconded. I think all section which participated did a fine job. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought it was vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • • Seconded, HiLo48. As an encyclopedia, we should be looking to educate, without the need to be bloody silly. Even once a year is too much. We're seen as unreliable already, having a main page which appears to be fake but isn't, serves to reinforce that. Bin April Fools on WP.  BarkingFish  12:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • From Wikipedia's article on Humour, "The hypothetical person lacking a sense of humour would likely find the behaviour induced by humour to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational." --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree, most of the main page jokes were pretty good, and a couple were quite hilarious--I liked the ones about "blowing up animals for Jesus" and "Santa Claus was a stud" the best. (but yes, some were stupid). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• I thought it was brilliant. Not a single lie was told, and premises were not stretched beyond reason. I felt that the Did You Know hook for ? was priceless. For all the naysaying that goes on over some slight humour, I still fail to see how any harm was done to the site by the April Fools page; and if the perception of unreliability it seen as a problem, perhaps Category:Articles with unsourced statements is a better target than the April Fools main page. GRAPPLE X 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a "look over there" response. Fix the problem being discussed. (And, as long as some see it as a problem, it is.) Don't point at another one. HiLo48 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • As long as some see it as a problem, it's a problem? I see a lack of humour as a problem, so it's a problem, so fix it. GRAPPLE X 19:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not a big fan of the Wikipedia April Fool's Day pranks. So what did I do? I just chose not to view the main page on April Fool's Day. Seemed like a simple solution.--WaltCip (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• My two cents: I'm fine either way with the April Fools thing. I have no problem with it, but if it was decided that there shouldn't be anything special, then it just means that DYK will have extra-funny mentions all year round - is that such a bad thing? I didn't like a lot of the jokes, but there is a lot of other stuff on Wikipedia I don't like, so I just don't read it. I agree that the hook ? was completely brilliant (I also liked the flying nuns, shark fins, and blown up animals as well).--¿3family6 _contribs 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• <bow>Thank thee, 3family6 and Grapple X</bow> Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does the Epsom Derby keep appearing in the DYK? I have now seen references to it three times in a span of a couple weeks. —Bzweebl— ^talk 00:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Because some contributors are experts on a specific subject (the Derby is only the most recent example), and keep writing about it. You are of course welcome to submit alternative articles to DYK, so we will be less dependent on somewhat repetitive material. See this FAQ. Art LaPella (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Kentucky win missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.254.162 (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, and convince the world that it's notable enough for a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Forget it. You want to play favorites then go ahead and keep your little private fiefdom.

Which isn't exactly found in Wikipedia:In the news#Purpose. Last time I checked the article is pretty bad though so you'll have to do some editing aside from convincing those who can't be convinced. –HTD 06:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin did not "become the first General Secretary" in April 1922. That post did not exist at that date; nor is it correct to imply that Stalin was "first among equals" in 1922. Wrong on multiple levels and an embarrassment to WP that the factoid is up on the main page. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Joseph Stalin article says: "... held the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 ...", which apparently means April 3, 1922 according to this. The lead paragraph of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union apparently disagrees with "That post did not exist at that date", and describes the preceding officeholder as "Recording Secretary" which accounts for making Stalin the first General Secretary. The top of this page says "... the Main Page usually defers to supporting pages for accuracy or when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first." The words "first among equals" aren't used; perhaps we should describe his relationship to Lenin, but several words would be required. Art LaPella (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

You should have your copyright information and Creation Dates (articles, Wikipedia itself)very noticable on every page. I had to do a persuasive essay and I had to cite one of your pages. It was very hard for me to find all the information. You could have a page next to the View History section for Wikipedia itself, and for every one of the articles, the information could be in a tab next to the View History button for each seperate article. Thanks for the consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.103.97 (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You can find the creation date for an article by clicking the "View History" page, then "earliest"; the date of creation will be the bottom revision date (so, for example, Rachel McAdams, it was on 28 June 2004). HTH :) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "... that carrying the body parts of your dismembered mother to a refrigerator is hardly Soft & Cuddly?" is hardly encyclopaedic in tone; it reads like an attempt at a gag from a highschooler. In particular, it seems to be going for humor, rather than informing the reader of what the article is actually about Leon... (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I did think the same myself. It would have been a perfect hook four days ago, but it does look out of place now. Shirudo talk 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the Main Page? —Centrx→talk • 16:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is some sort of Lebowski Zen question, but it's this one. GRAPPLE X 16:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about adding this to the Main Page?:

• What is Knowledge?
• What is Ignorance?
• What is The Big Lebowski?

—Centrx→talk • 18:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did you add this to the main page? What is the relevance of this?--Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to write here: "Thank you for your consideration. Added without objection." Why did you ask me a question? —Centrx→talk • 05:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Too bad.. that would have made a great rhyme! What I meant to say was why is the addition of those three questions be relevant on the main page?--Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I got them from Grapple X, who said "I don't know", "Lebowski", "Zen", and "Here is a link to the main page".

The questions are links to the main page, from the answer to the question I asked in the talk page of the main page.

Is the Main Page the First Portal to Wikipedia?

—Centrx→talk • 06:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:POINT — foxj 06:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand.

Do you hate me?

Do you have any constructive improvements for the Main Page?

—Centrx→talk • 06:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I misunderstand because this whole thread reads like garbage to me. Should it have all happened five days ago? Otherwise, please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Centrx should be desysoped for screwing around with the main page. Jenks24 (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks the same as it has been for years. Did you change something? —Centrx→talk • 07:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Centrx's sysop account may have been compromised??? --70.50.202.93 (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've posted this on the article talk page and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, but I need more eyes, apparently. Currently, the Passover article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 6, except that there is a big maintenance tag in the very first section after the introduction. It would be a great embarrassment if we were unable to include an article about a major Jewish holiday due to maintenance issues. Hopefully there are some brave souls who are willing to devote some time to fixing that before 00:00 UTC comes. —howcheng {chat} 04:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone removed it. Hot Stop 05:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The recent images for POTD is missing. Please bring it back; I sometimes miss them. Thanks...Smarkflea (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's displaying fine for me. Chris857 (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it's back...thanksSmarkflea (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Change "difficult" to "harsh" in "that the Rukwa Valley in southwestern Tanzania is sparsely populated because of its difficult environment?". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Go to WP:ERRORS. --70.50.202.93 (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I type, that picture of Pál Schmitt has been on ITN for four days. Is it the second coming of ...

Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is this man and why have you put him here? Does he know about this? —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

He's behind it all. It's some new form of campaigning. GRAPPLE X 05:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, Schmitt doesn't look anywhere near as, er... iconic as Lugo.--WaltCip (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All hail Lugo! Lugnuts (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Four days is nothing. Lugo was up for a good week. Twice. —howcheng {chat} 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure it was a "good" week; at least not for ITN and current important news event. But, LONG LIVE THE LUGO!

Rhodesisland (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bingu wa Mutharika is going to be the new Lugo. 109.97.178.234 (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Recently DYK has been running only 6 "hooks" at a time, but the supply of content has been increasing, so the length of each DYK set is increasing to 7 "hooks" (starting at about 0900 UTC on 7 April) and may soon go up to 8 (which used to be the standard size). In order to keep the main page balanced, this will mean more space for content in ITN and/or OTD. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has complained of 'a preponderance of entries on topic (X)' lately.

What has gone wrong? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

???? We had a comment/question about 5 days ago Talk:Main Page/Archive 166#Epsom Derby. We may have occassionally had more then one query within 5 days, but 5 days from the last comment isn't exactly a long time. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's too many instances of the word "Wikipedia" on this page. I count at least 30. If it were any other word it would have been blasted by an admin years ago. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever stepped back to look at the exterior of this composte? I have and I know that the war will be lost by the female unknown YOU hear what I said I am smarter than your capable of ever being!!! I have the one thing not ever will be taken( his heart ). My assets are irreplaceable ... The list goes on. True love can't be overcome.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.80.146 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a preponderance of DYK hooks about Australian athletes. Also, two hooks today about Zen-related stuff. There, now someone complained. 109.97.158.210 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the Australian athlete articles are by 1 editor, and the horse articles definitely are. Don't complain about prolific writing. Chris857 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I was only complaining because someone complained about the lack of complaints... 109.97.158.210 (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a complaint really, but it is interesting that today's featured article is about a moth from Madagascar and half of the ITN hooks are about Africa. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone done a statistical analysis of how frequent different types of complaint are, and what, apart from 'the usual suspects' (loosely 'naughty words and naughty pictures') provokes reactions? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How do we hide the title? I've looked at the code, and can't find it. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 13:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#How do you remove the title of the Main Page?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It is time to archive this talkpage, but I can't archive it myself because there is no move icon. Pdiddyjr (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this User:MiszaBot I's job? --PFHLai (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's also not time to archive this talk page. — foxj 06:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally, akin to most non user talk pages (and many user talk pages to boot), archiving is done by effectively and pasting the content to an archive page never by moving. While this confuses the contrib history somewhat it does prevent having to recreate the page with all the prerequiste templates etc and also means you don't have to archive the entire page in one go but instead can archive stale sections. Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Terrible quality, and I can't find it on the NPS website (attribution link is broken). There's plenty of other (better) images on their website and in the Commons category, someone should really switch it for something better. --Openmouth (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, way too small to be of any use. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Its at the resolution that a non-free image would be. We can do better. Chris857 (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. As always, once you've done so (discussing it in the article talk page as needed), you're welcome to ask for the main page to be changed to match in the erros section. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia feature something as trite as a cartoon character as the daily featured article. There are so many more substantial topics that could be featured. Disgusting. Ceiling Cat (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well... with a username like Ceiling Cat, I can tell you always lean toward the serious in everything. Maybe there's a time for every purpose, and highlighting lighthearted things is just one purpose in bringing more interest to our shared project. -- Avanu (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't pay too much attention to Ceiling Cat. He's a well-known troublemaker. Raul654 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Such as? RichardGHP (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane, of course! Nothing wrong with an encore appearance. Or maybe we could bump Fucking Austria up to FA status.--WaltCip (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you be careful with comments like that Ceiling Cat. Bob is known to hold a grudge. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is today's TFA blurb so long????? Why is there so much blank space under OTD????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.119.218 (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The blurb doesn't seem that long to me. My guess is the whitespace problem partially relates to DYK which has recently returned to 8 items a day from 6 (see #Heads up: DYK is getting a little bit bigger) so other sections have not yet learnt to compensate. In any case, it seems to have improved with this edit [6] Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

These sort of discussions are the internet equivalent of standing on 21 rakes and letting them hit you in the face. Lugnuts (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

TFA blurb writers rarely stick to the limit of "roughly 1200 characters or fewer". Exceeding this limit by 20% when DYK is asking for more space? Sigh... we need better co-ordination on the use of the valuable space we have on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Right on the heels of a cartoon character, yet again we have a video game on the main page. Have we given up on being a formal encyclopedia? It seems that way to me.--128.227.61.8 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course we have; real encyclopedias never cover video games. But seriously, we have had this discussion over and over. Wikipedia covers a wide range of subjects, including emerging artforms and pop culture. Despite popular conception on this talk page, the vast majority of TFAs relate to neither however. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

See also here. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The most effective way to influence the choice of Today's featured article would be to register an account and begin contributing at WP:TFAR, or write "formal encyclopedia" articles and get them promoted at WP:FAC. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that it is too late too add this but it is too bad that we didn't mention the Apollo 13 accident in the "On this day" section. Not that it is any more or less important than any of the items that are there, but, this is a "date" and "day of the week" synced up anniversary and that doesn't happen very often. I'm not trying to force this in - I am just noting it for the record. Cheers to all that take care of out main page. MarnetteD | Talk 19:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 13 is listed on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 14. —howcheng {chat} 19:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the link. I'm not seeing the mention but I think it got removed at some point (I saw it in the history but then couldn't find where it disappeared) which is probably just as well. Yes the explosion occurred a little after 3am GMT the 14th but that was still the 13th for all US time zones (I know except for Guam) and is noted as such in virtually all of the books about the event. Thanks again for your response. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Because this is a global encyclopaedia we use UTC, and "virtually all of the books" would have been written from a US perspective. The date they used doesn't overide our rules. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record Wikipedia has guidelines not rules. I have been all the way through WP:MOSNUM and I can find a statement saying that we only use UTC to determine when an event took place. On the other hand we have WP:STRONGNAT to allow for the variation between US articles and those of other countries and Apollo 13 was certainly a US event. Other guidelines include WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY I would be interested to learn if there are any outside sources that state this event took place on Saturday. We also have the guideline of WP:IAR which seems to have been applied here April 1912#April 14.2C 1912 .28Sunday.29 and in the Titanic article itself wherein the ship struck the iceberg on Sunday the 14th not Monday the 15th. I see that we have listed the A13 explosion in our "On this day" section on both the 13th and the 14th over the years which is fine but listing it on the 14th alters its WP:NOTABILITY in regards to its "Friday the 13th" mythology which was noted in 1970 and has been quite often ever since. MarnetteD | Talk 02:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would they talk about Friday the 13th mythology in April of 1970 when 13 April 1970 was on Monday? GB fan 03:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

MarnetteD - Not entirely "a US event". Ever seen The Dish? It highlights that, because the world is round, the Apollo program depended on a lot of cooperation and effort all around the globe. This would certainly have applied to Apollo 11. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The rule you're looking for is at WP:OTD#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages: Events are listed according to the local time of where they happened. As there is no time zone in space, UTC is the most appropriate. We had this same discussion with the Apollo 11 moon landing as well. —howcheng {chat} 19:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, the On This Day feature is displaying: "April 14: Easter Saturday (Western Christianity, 2012)." Would someone please change this very misleading phrase? Most Christians (Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and other Protestants) in Western Europe, the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand - typically considered "the West" in common parlance - celebrated Easter last Sunday; April 14 is Easter only in churches of the Eastern Orthodox persuasion, whose greatest numbers are in Greece, Russia, and Eastern Europe. Whether that makes them part or not part of whatever "Western Christianity" is supposed to mean might be a debatable technicality, but to express it this way is misleading and confusing to readers. I don't know how to make the change here on the Main Page myself, so I'm asking for another editor to kindly intervene on this point. Thanks. Textorus (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs). Next time, please consider posting at Talk:Main Page#Main Page error reports. You may get a quicker response. Thanks for the report, anyway. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will make note of the right place to report errors in future. Textorus (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Today is "Easter Saturday", the last day of the seven days of Easter, in Western Christianity. It is "Holy and Great Saturday", the day before Easter Sunday, in Eastern Christianity. I think this needs correction/clarification. Will (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Today is Holy Saturday for Eastern Christians, not Easter Saturday which is the week after Easter. Eastern Christians celebrate Easter a week after Western Christians this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctaviix (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope this edit fixes everything now. --PFHLai (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It says "known as a flat crossing in the United Kingdom". Wrong! It's known as a 'level' crossing, never 'flat'. PRL42 (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am no railway expert but I have always understood a level crossing to be where a railway crosses a road (as described in that article). The situation in the picture is a railway crossing another railway, which could conceivably have another name - Dumelow (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are correct. PRL42 (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it possible that we didn't place Titanic's sinking centennial in the "on this day" section? Can that be done tomorrow? --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Our article says the Titanic sank on 15 April and it would normally appear on that day. However since the Sinking of the RMS Titanic article is scheduled to be on the main page tomorrow as Today's Featured Article (TFA) it has been removed from On This Day... (OTD) as it is their policy not to have an article featured in both TFA and OTD. Hope that helps - Dumelow (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Helps by far! It was strange not to mention that, but now i get it. Thanks you. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the featured article, we've had nine items in 'did you know'. Is this not excessive? 86.168.51.242 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the 100th anniversary of a very famous tragedy, which I think is rather significant. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but if it were the centenary of the birth of an incredibly noteworthy person, I'm sure there would be a lot of argument over more than a featured article appearance, especially if that person were a citizen of the United States. Just my opinion, that's all. 86.168.51.242 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Although it's quite hard to write several new articles on a person, this is quite true when you'd replace "person" with "event." –HTD 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a proposal to remove the ITNR status of the 20 least populous countries here. Hot Stop 11:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Archives do not show discussion of why this page gets to violate WP:SELFREF. Shouldn't "Main Page" point to an article like home page or front page instead? Shouldn't Wikipedia Main Page point to an article like Wikipedia#English Wikipedia (leaving aside Anglophone WP:BIAS for now)? Apparently the correct solution is to move this page to the rightly titled Portal:Wikipedia. This does not seem like WP:IAR applies well because it would be an improvement (yes, a technically challenging one, but we routinely ignore technical challenges) to rename this page "Portal:Wikipedia". As the person who corrected the self-ref violation in ignore all rules, which is now a stable article rather than a cross-namespace redirect, I am asking this question at least half-seriously. JJB 16:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why is Main Page in the main namespace? the wub "?!" 16:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Linked at "Main Page FAQ" above. Got it, very informative and persuasive link, thanks. :P JJB 16:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that wikipedia is worldwide, but Dick Clark is really very very famous. He was on television in it's relative early days. Shouldn't his death at least be mentioned in the news section of the homepage?--108.54.27.24 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates is where you want to go. GRAPPLE X 01:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The statement, "In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present" is wrong. The curvature is related to the Stress–energy tensor (and the Cosmological constant), which includes more information than just "four-momentum". A more ambiguously like statement like, "The local curvature of spacetime can roughly be thought of as being created by the local momentum and energy density of matter and radiation" may be better. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS above. --142.1.32.35 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current fact seems like promotion of the player. Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 18:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For shame. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Denied! C'mon, Lugo's mugo has to be better than that RAF pic. Lugnuts (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OTD isn't ITN, so even if he was pictured it would be nice to use an alternative image! Also, shouldn't the bold link be on 'elected' rather than 'became'? Modest Genius ^talk 13:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird. I'm not sure about boldness specifically, but the linking is wrong. "became" would typically link to an inauguration or presidency page/section. "elected" should link to the election article. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• For shame... Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Lugo doesn't have the photo spot because he was added later for balance. By then, the RAF logo was already in place. —howcheng {chat} 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I read an article about Lugo inviting Paul McCartney to visit the presidential palace, which he turned down, maybe we should get that ITN...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just want to ask why there are ads on this site? I don't know if I'm the only one seeing them. What's the reason for having ads? Wikipedia never had ads before. --189.153.26.5 (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Where did you see ads?--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no ads on this site. The problem is most definitely on your end—viewing the site through a proxy can lead to ads being inserted by that proxy, for instance, or you may have some other problem. GRAPPLE X 23:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. I was scared for a few minutes. --189.153.26.5 (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• This issue has been discussed on mailing lists and so far the chief suspect is some kind of malicious browser plugin. We don't know which one exactly, however. — foxj 03:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Having each user who reports an advert also report a list of browser addons (possibly just their HTTP header may reveal this) may be a way to find which plugin is responsible. After about 5-15 reports the common plugins between the samples would be suspect. In my opinion, more likely to be a less popular plugin, or a proxy server. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The picture of the day was given the title "Black Tusk, Canada", April 19. The common reference is to use the '<Sitename>, <Province>' style; in this case 'Black Tusk, B.C.' (or 'British Columbia'). The POTD for April 18 followed this convention: Meteor Crater, Arizona. It wasn't 'Meteor Crater, United States'. Editors, please use the <Site, Province/Territory> format for Canadian locations. Yoho2001 (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS above. --69.158.119.218 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. —howcheng {chat} 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a worldwide resource. College football is a relatively narrow interest, and there is no relationship between this choice of feature article and the date of April 21st. Really, is this the best that was available?? Darcyj (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a Featured Article, and there was no reason not to put it on the main page. What exactly is the problem? GRAPPLE X 01:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a worldwide resource, and interests of people vary. You may not think college football is worth a featured article, but obviously some do. Heck, we've got featured articles on singers barely known outside their own South-East Asian country... Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I see featured articles about Association football on the main page fairly regularly. It's nice to see American football on the main page for once. And as far as it being of "narrow interest", you clearly don't know how big college football is in the United States. I'd bet there are as many (or more) people in the US that follow college football as there are people in the UK that follow Premier League football. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this month's TFA's, I see an article on photography of pigeons, a 19th century British author, A creek in Oregon that nobody outside Oregon has ever heard of, a minor character on the Simpsons, A mostly-forgotten video game released 15 years ago and a bloody puffball, among others. I can't say I see what makes this article any worse for the front page than any of those. Quite the opposite, actually. Every TFA is an opportunity to learn about something you may not necessarily be interested in. And every FA deserves it's time on the main page at some point. Resolute 02:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The pigeon photography article was for April Fool's, IIRC. Jenks24 (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So? It's a real article. It was chosen for April 1st because it looks like a hoax, but isn't. Just like the other April 1st items. APL (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe TFAs have to meet any particular standard of importance, much less international appeal. If the article is up to snuff, it can be a TFA. Not sure what you mean by "relatively" narrow interest at any rate - relative to what? Sideshow Bob? A creek less than 5 miles long? -OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In reply to all - and thank you for your feedback and arguments - I simply don't see the notability of this particular game of football. Yes, the Orange Bowl is notable of itself. Yes, Rreagan007, I am aware of the following of college football in the USA. I do not dispute that the article itself is on a notable subject and merits its place in Wikipedia. But there should be some degree of particular notability about a FA, and in response to Reso, I agree with you, some of those recent FAs are also questionable. Doesn't make this one right either. Darcyj (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Featured articles are not, and should never be, held to any higher standard of notability than other articles—provided WP:N is satisfied, a featured article is judged on its quality. If a subject is sufficiently notable to have an article, then it's sufficiently notable to be featured. GRAPPLE X 10:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely, I don't think a two-tier system for FAs and normal articles would be desirable at all. If anything it's good that an FA be "less notable" because then it sheds light on an interesting topic—which for some (not me, but I'm not all Wikipedians) might well be a sports tournament like that. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dick Clark died. Wow. Big news, no one cares. Honestly, I'm not joking. Isn't there anything more important? Updates about the YPF re-nationalization perhaps? Something else? I don't know. This is my opinion as a regular reader and user. --189.197.165.148 (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As horrifying as this must be for you, I don't see any contributions to the discussion, by you, at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. In the future, to prevent such travesties of justice from being foisted on the reading public, you should make sure your opinion is heard before it becomes too late to avoid a disaster such as this. --Jayron32 03:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That shouldn't be. The opinion of one passing editor should always trump consensus on any day of the week.--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What, the OP shouldn't have their opinion count? Why would you say that? The OP should participate in the process instead of just complaining from the sidelines... Or, are you saying that mr 189.197 doesn't matter? Because I am certainly not saying that. I value their opinion, which is why I directed them to the place where it can matter, instead of here where it is entirely impotent. --Jayron32 20:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Important"? Or simply the "most recent" item to have gone through WP:ITN/C? It's chronological. --69.158.119.218 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the original poster is under the misapprehension that ITN is an actual news ticker. It isn't. It is simply a way of calling attention to articles we have that are connected to items the reader may have come across in actual news reports. As such his/her suggestion of updating the YPF item really makes no sense. --Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion about YPF was just an example of how anything would be much more important than Dick Clark's death. --189.197.165.148 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Such as the NCAA basketball finals?--WaltCip (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the part about the section not being a news ticker? —David Levy 19:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This brings to mind the google "doodles": commemorating useless anniversaries, i.e. "celebrating 36th year of the release of thriller in the usa" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.197.165.148 (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have asked what makes 189.197 so qualified to be the unanimous authority on news importance. Please tell us. 86.145.90.103 (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

~