User talk:Moabdave/U.S. Route 491 - main page blurb

Copied text from User talk:Davemeistermoab
Congratulations on the FA, I know how hard they can be (and still fail). Anyhow, I noticed your suggestion for the article to be used as the April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article. Would you propose the main page text for the article, and provide a link to the proposal so others can evaluate its funniness? Remember, the devil and number of the beast (666) are Christian concepts that many people around the world will not be able to relate to.  Royal broil  02:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was hoping to get some help with the humor part, asking a roadgeek to be funny in describing a road is like asking a math professor to be funny while teaching algebra =-) However, here's a first draft: User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox. Dave (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand (I was a math major!). That's pretty funny! Would you add a link to your proposed summary at April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article. Be aware that you might need to leave that link up until March/April because responses are usually quite slow there, so maybe you want to find a more permanent home for the summary (maybe a subpage under the article or on its talk page?). It might even more powerful to title the article under its former name, U.S. Route 666. I don't understand the line "is general proof that they just do things differently there" and it sounds non-encyclopedic. Otherwise it reads quite well. I'm sure someone will help spice it up a bit if you propose it there. After this, let's please keep this discussion at the main discussion place instead of hard to find on our/your talk page(s).  Royal broil  15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, yeah the "they do things differently" didn't quite work. Only roadgeeks would get it =-). It comes from the very brief mention that Utah considers the road to run in a different direction from the other states, and as a result the Utah mileposts are in reverse order compared to the other two states. Definately needs work. Dave (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is interesting. I'll try to think of a way to integrate that in, but it's hard without getting too wordy. I do like this proposal overall. Some people are so good at writing little hooks like this, so don't be surprised if one of them comes in and spices this up even more. It's way better than I could do! I hadn't looked around much when I commented, so I missed that you updated the AFMP/FA proposals. I have no problem with anything that you added here.  Royal broil  02:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)