Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Main Page/2007 Archive 1

Adding to fixed mainpage text
There is text on the mainpage that does not change from day to day. An example of adding truthful, whimsical text to fixed mainpage text would be adding the phrase "(even those without a sense of humor!)" below "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." in the Masthead (see proposal above under the Masthead section). The five mainpage sections affected by this are (1) Masthead, (2) Donation section, (3) Other areas of Wikipedia, (4) Wikipedia's sister projects, and (5) Wikipedia languages The issue that needs to be resolved is whether truthful, whimsical text can be added to fixed mainpage text as part of the AFMP project. Approve means you approve adding text to the fixed mainpage text as part of the AFMP project. Disapprove means that you do not approve adding text to the fixed mainpage text as part of the AFMP project. Please provide your reasoning below with an Approve, Disapprove, or some other position. -- Jreferee 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Will wait on other comments Disapprove - my Masthead addition seemed like a good idea, but on reviewing what I just wrote to propose this issue for discussion, allowing truthful, whimsical text to fixed mainpage text seems too open ended. You could end up with so many additions to the AFMP mainpage that the look and feel to the mainpage would change and the AFMP April fools intent would be lost.  We could limit the addition to fixed mainpage text to one addition.  I would like to review the reasoning of others before posting my conclusion (vote). -- Jreferee 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) OK, I'm convinced.  The humor will be in the choice of truths we tell, not in the addition of new material. -- Jreferee 02:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be under the impression that this matter is up for discussion. It isn't.  Placing silly and/or degrading remarks on the main page is vandalism.  Vandalism is against Wikipedia policy 365 (or 366) days per year.  This cannot be "voted" away.  &mdash;David Levy 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At present, there are no approved guidelines specific to AFMP. One editor telling another editor you cannot do this has not been sufficient to keep this page under control and seems to have driven away some of those who otherwise would have been willing to help with content. An objective of these consensuses is to develop consensus rules quickly that may be utilized to politely inform people that, although their idea is appreciated, it does not meet the AFMP rules approved by consensus.  This should help us retain volunteers and keep this page under control so that we may better focus on AFMP content.  More in particular to your post, limiting this vote to silly and/or degrading remark additions to fixed mainpage text still leaves open the question of non-silly and/or non-degarding remarks additions to fixed mainpage text.  It is important that this consensus come to a decision that covers all possible situations, not just some. -- Jreferee 23:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "No approved guidelines specific to AFMP"? You think that we need a special rule against vandalising the main page on 1 April?!  &mdash;David Levy 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think saying you can add AFMP text to fixed mainpage text so long as it is not vandalism leaves too much open and would result in hurt fealings and loss of AFMP volunteers through conflicts over issues that were not predetermined. -- Jreferee 01:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood. I'm not saying that this type of editing is okay "so long as it is not vandalism."  I'm saying that this type of editing is vandalism.  &mdash;David Levy 02:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't class it as such. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" - WP:VANDAL.  Altering the format of the main page is not intrinsically vandalism - adding, for example, "(even those without a sense of humor!)" would not be a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.  That isn't to say that such an alteration is a good idea, but surely this discussion (which seems to be heading for 'disapprove' in any case) can be had on a rational level, rather than reduced to labels?  (WP:VANDAL: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors".)  TSP 04:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. I disagree. Adding a disparaging comment to the main page as a joke (a proposal that Jreferee has withdrawn) is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."  The problem is that some people (including sysops) believe that it's okay to compromise Wikipedia's integrity if the date happens to be 1 April, and they often cite the fact that we don't have a specific rule against April Fools' Day pranks.  My point is that we need no such rule; vandalism is a policy violation on any date.
 * 2. The passage regarding "alienating or driving away potential editors" refers to newcomer tests. Excepting 1 April 2006's anonymous edit (enabled by a sysop who decided that it would be funny to unprotect the main page), anyone capable of editing the page is an experienced user who should know better than to engage in such nonsense.  &mdash;David Levy 04:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is NOT a "deliberate" attempt to compromise the integrity of wikipedia. And one suggestion of something that you have interpreted as "a disparaging comment" does not mean that EVERY possible thing that could be added is "a disparaging comment" and thus by your definition vandalism. —Random832 2007-01-23T15:09:12UTC(01/23 10:09EST) -- P.S. "Even those without a sense of humor" may be disparaging, what about something more neutral "Whether or not you observe April Fools Day"? --15:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. This is an encyclopedia, not Uncyclopedia. Adding a silly, unencyclopedic joke to the main page certainly isn't an accidental attempt to compromise Wikipedia's integrity, is it?
 * 2. I was referring specifically to the type of addition that Jreferee suggested. Your example isn't disparaging (and it wouldn't qualify as vandalism), but it is entirely inappropriate.
 * Firstly, we make no such mention for any other cultural observance.  (There's no "Whether or not you observe the Day of the Holy Innocents" message on 28 December.)  It's downright ethnocentric to explicitly single out this one.
 * Secondly, it would spoil the fun of compiling a normal main page that just happens to contain true information that seems implausible (which is appropriate because it could be done an a different date without compromising our standards, so it doesn't adversely affect people who don't observe April Fools' Day). &mdash;David Levy 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see your point TSP. The content of the main page is controlled by various groups.  Main page fixed text can be modified or added to with the right approval from whoever presently controls what appears on the main page fixed text.  Since changing the main page fixed would not fit within this project, there is no point in seeking that approval. In regards to the labeling, labeling something as vandalism is not a personal attack if it is well intentioned.-- Jreferee 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Disapprove - Whilst there might be humor possibilities, I think we have to spend our 'political capital' carefully. If we want to make a mess of the home page, we're likely to stir up a hornet's nest of diapproval and wind up getting nothing whatever done.  We're going to need a certain amount of help in 'bending rules' in order to get this done well - and we should spend our favors wisely. Besides, if we follow through with the goals we've set out then the humor will be in the choice of truths we tell - all else is superfluous. SteveBaker 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Disapprove Per David Levy. We should change the facts and information, not the setup or presentation. | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * SOME fixed text on the main page itself (like the you can edit message mentioned in the lead of this section) is not one of the 5 major thematic areas. Jreferee is trying to determine who or what group controls  (or drives/determines consensus, however you care to put it) the fixed text specific to the main page.  I support the effort to identify and document the main page fixed text things for the benefit of the AFMP 08 and beyond teams... I also support the apparent consensus that we not change any of the main page fixed text this year. (Steve B's note on political capital is spot on) I also urge helping Jreferee document this stuff if you know. (I gave a few clues but ran out of knowledge already) ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue that this discussion sought to resolve was whether truthful, whimsical text can be added to fixed mainpage text as part of the AFMP project. To reduce the number of fixed mainpage text alteration suggestions in the future, it would help to include a clear description of what would be involved in such a change. -- Jreferee 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jreferee has asked me to explain what sort of process was used to determine the main page's design. As I'm all too aware (because of my prominent involvement), it took months of nightmarish debate (with every minute detail analyzed, re-analyzed, and re-re-analyzed).  This culminated in a similarly nightmarish 18-day poll/discussion with over 900 participants (and eventual consensus).  For those who are interested in examining the archives, here's a link.  &mdash;David Levy 05:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder! I well understand how hard it would be to get special stuff put onto the front page for April 1st.  In a rational world the nature of the change (subtle - hopefully) and the short duration and special occasion (one day - April 1st) ought to make this easy to do.  The general public would of course see this as a 'normal' thing that websites do on April 1st and not use it to judge our standards for the other 364 days out of the year.  Such upstanding organisations as BMW and the BBC have produced the most outrageous April Fools events in history - but many of our more boring members would see this as an unforgivable lowering of standards and would debate it into oblivion.  It's not going to happen.  We should just give up on this one. Sadly it's a waste of energy to even debate it. SteveBaker 14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that I'm "boring." Please excuse me for not believing that your cultural observance alone justifies fundamental changes that we make for no other.  &mdash;David Levy 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting you'd do this only for April Fool's day. I would like to be like Google's front page - where some aspect of the front page is changed to recognise all sorts of 'cultural observances'.  But whatever - it's irrelevent because it's clearly not going to happen. SteveBaker 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

End it at noon
It is a common practice (mostly by adults trying to spoil kids' fun) to declare April Fools' day to be over at noon. Since some people have expressed concern about serious "On this day..." events never being featured, why not have, at least for a few hours before whatever time April 2nd's OTD's go up, a normal main page? --Random832T 10:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Problem is that any midday chosen will inevitably be long before some peoples' midday and long after others'. Whose midnight do the "on this day" and so on change over on, anyway? TSP 14:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - but also, the rule about only pulling pranks in the morning is only a part of the tradition in some countries. Here in the USA, the entire day is available.  In the UK, the morning-only rule has not been much observed since maybe the 1970's.   Add to that (as TSP points out) that Wikipedia is read all around the world - and we really have no hope of correctly observing this part of the tradition.  Heck, a good proportion of the planet will see our efforts on completely the wrong day.  Worse still, if we reverted to normal Wikipedia after 12 hours, everyone would have to prepare TWO front pages - and the poor folks who have their hard-fought-for front-page-featured-article/photo up on the front page for only 12 hours would be suitably aggrieved.  Finally - technically, we aren't pulling any pranks.  We're trying to make everything we do factually correct - so anyone who thinks we are pulling a prank is merely fooling themselves - that's the beauty of it.  So for many reasons, this has to be a 24 hour thing. SteveBaker 15:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah they're factually correct, but the concern I saw stated about OTD's was that stuff that can't fit into a "whimsical" theme will never be shown on april 1. Maybe just switch the OTD's over? --Random832T 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the above scope of the project, I listed that AFMP is from 00:00 to 23:59 on 1 April 2007 (UTC). However, this largely depends on how often the five departments change their section on the Main Page.  Do they coordinate their changes and make them all at once or do they make them independent of each other?  Is the Main Page set up in advance by the five departments to permit a bot to switch out the old Main Page at exactly 00:00 (UTC)?  It would help this discussion to have an explanation of how often the five departments change their section on the Main Page, whether this effort is coordinated, and any other relevant information regarding Main Page timing.  Thanks.  -- Jreferee 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Today's featured article, Today's featured picture and On this day... are prepared in advance and automatically change at 00:00 (UTC). Did you know... and In the news are not tied to specific dates; they're updated manually throughout the day.
 * For our purposes, we won't be able to contribute much to In the news (though we might be able to find a suitably noteworthy story to throw in), but we can easily set up a special Did you know... section that automatically appears at 00:00 (UTC) on 1 April and reverts to the standard transclusion at 00:00 (UTC) on 2 April. &mdash;David Levy 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)