Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Disco Demolition Night

Disco Demolition Night
This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Today's featured article/requests. 
 * This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page. 

The result was: scheduled for Today's featured article/April 1, 2014 by BencherliteTalk 14:51, 22 March 2014‎ (UTC)



Disco Demolition Night was an ill-fated baseball promotion that took place on July 12, 1979, at Comiskey Park in Chicago, Illinois. In the late 1970s, dance-oriented disco music was highly popular in the United States, particularly after featuring in hit films such as Saturday Night Fever (1977). Despite its popularity, disco sparked a backlash from rock music fans. This opposition was prominent enough that the Chicago White Sox engaged shock jock and anti-disco campaigner Steve Dahl for a promotion at a twi-night doubleheader between the White Sox and the Detroit Tigers. Attendees were to bring a disco record with them, and between games, Dahl would destroy the collected vinyl albums in an explosion. Many of those in attendance had come to see the explosion rather than the games and rushed onto the field after the detonation, remaining there until dispersed by riot police. The second game was initially postponed due to damage caused by the rowdy fans, but was instead forfeited to the Tigers the next day. Disco Demolition Night remains well known as one of the most extreme promotions in major league history.
 * And here's the blurb.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Blurb is 300 characters too long (with spaces). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm still working on it (hint, hint).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How's that?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Peachy. We can play this straight and it's still unbelievable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's just incredible. What were they thinking?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Bencherlite has asked for discussion of April 1 ideas on this page's talkpage. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And also at this page. See this diff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly mind where discussion takes place, as long as it doesn't splinter, so I'll copy Dweller's suggestions to here. BencherliteTalk 11:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So far, all of the opposition relates to a preference to run the article on July 12 instead. While I understand the logic, I don't regard this as the type of subject for which an anniversary is particularly meaningful. The event is remembered for its ridiculousness (not its date), so it would be a shame to pass up the opportunity to run it on April Fools' Day (especially given the alternatives, which are ordinary subjects dressed up to seem strange). —David Levy 09:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. High quality page, promoted to FA in 2013. Certainly educational and most intriguing subject matter. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Seems a good 1 April choice. I prefer a factual-but-really weird TFA on April Fools Day to ones which use misleading wording to entertain readers. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose if only because it would do better on July 12, 2014 which would be the 35th anniversary. When we have a clear date-tied event like this, it makes MORE sense to run it on the anniversary itself.  April Fools articles would be better to not have a specific date tied to them.  -- Jayron  32  02:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Well-written, no present issues, but as Jayron said, the date's in the wrong place. July 12 isn't too far away is it? Minima  ©  ( talk ) 18:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT - Great, entertaining article. I think this is the best candidate for 1 April.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - This or the trout article below. This one is hilarious in its own right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support this one as well. One of baseball's legendary mistakes. Resolute 14:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per 's reasoning.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose April 1st date. Support running it on July 12. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose April 1, save this for the actual anniversary instead.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Put this on July 12. 166.137.244.84 (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for April 1. Genuine foolishness of notable significance. So absurd in reality that the synopsis doesn't even need to spin it. (The last sentence, "...remains well known...", isn't needed.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for April 1. As others have noted, this is an article about genuine foolishness and absurdity, so no special spin or misleading wording are needed (a big plus).
 * Oppose April 1. I'd prefer to run this on 12 July. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - This seems like a good choice for April 1. I think readers will expect a humorous subject on April 1, but probably wouldn't even notice the date connection if we ran it on July 12 (and wouldn't care about the connection even if they did notice), so I think April 1 is a better date for this than July 12. Calathan (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my feeling as well. People care about anniversaries of births, deaths, and various major historical events (which often are associated with the dates on which they occurred).  Even among readers familiar with Disco Demolition Night, I seriously doubt that many remember (let alone care) that it occurred on July 12.  It usually doesn't hurt to run such an article on an anniversary, but it does when it spoils an opportunity to run a weird subject on April Fools' Day instead.  —David Levy 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Has anyone reached out to the DJ to see if he has any photos of the event that can be used in the article? That I think would make a considerable difference. I'll try to look for him, but hope someone else does as well (like how the Navy sends out three subs with the same mission for just-in-case-two-are-sunk redundancy).--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not. I did email one or two sites on the internet with DDN photos seeing if I could get donations.  I didn't get a response.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment: Disco Demolition Night gets the nod overall, I think. Only Fools and Horses needs work (perhaps its appearance on Sports Relief last night will prompt some interest); Pixies is a nice idea but the feeling seemed to be that the joke wore a little thin; the Kaiser blurb didn't work for others. I'd already removed Pig-faced women and Rainbow trout, in particular for the opposition of the respective principal authors (it's more than a little unfair to expect principal authors to put up with a 1st April TFA against their will). Which leaves us with Disco Demolition Night and Quehanna Wild Area. The preference this year seems to be for a "strange-but-true" blurb over a "true-but-presented-strange" blurb, and although some would prefer DDN on its anniversary, we don't have to be limited by anniversaries (and it's only the 35th anniversary coming up, not a particularly special one). Thanks to all who participated. Same time next year? BencherliteTalk 14:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)