Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2009

pulling things togther
should we start gathering the good hooks so we can see how many we have?--Found5dollar (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We usually pull it together on March 31st. We only had around 10 hooks last year and did 2 updates. We should easily be that number this year! At this point, I count The Story of Menstruation, Glochidion ferdinandi cheese trees (with picture), Wicked Bible, everything, Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers, The Holyland (Wisconsin), Chili Bowl (might be able to use a picture of a real Chili bowl instead of the midget car race), Kayabukiya Tavern, Sir Winston Churchill (schooner), Kim Jong-Il (athlete), SS Indus (1945) Lewis Hamilton, Gordon Brown (footballer born 1932), Hobbit (unit), Pains and Penalties Bill 1820, Sacred Cod of Massachusetts (with picture), and I haven't looked at the rest. We are in VERY good shape with 15 hooks.  Royal broil  00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What will happen if we have more hooks than are allowed over the day? --Found5dollar (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We could accommodate around 8 hooks/round x 4 rounds = around 32 hooks. I supposed we'd either have to vote, rule out some marginal length articles, or have an extra round with part of the world being under April 1st.  Royal broil  05:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DYK could also update every 4 or 5 hours instead.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  06:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, Bedford, that would probably be the first option.  Royal broil  12:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page banner
Should we plan what the Talk:Main Page banner should say, instead of just letting it happen? As I remember last time, we explained that for April Fools' Day, the Main Page can be misleading but accurate, so you don't need to report what we already know. We might also explain to the humorless that although canceling this long-prepared annual event in mid-execution (as they often demand) is unimaginable, they can express their opinion on whether to continue next year, but do it here (Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know) rather than at WP:ERRORS or Talk:Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We should have explanations ready at these places. Also, we could create a separate subpage here at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. Please do not tell them about this page because then they'll vandalize or disrupt it. Do we really want the opinion of the minority who oppose this type of thing? Like you said, there are many humorless people in the world who just can't understand foolishness like this.  Royal broil  23:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe I told them to come here last year and that didn't happen (they're fuddy-duddies, not vandals), but I'll send them somewhere else if you like. Art LaPella (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Too successful this year?
With about 40 viable hooks on the list so far, and a month yet to go, it may be worth deciding what to do with any leftover hooks before time runs out. Here are the options as I see them: Any opinions on which route should be taken, or any other options available to us? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Save them for next year - editors have in some instances already been waiting 10-11 months to see their article on the Main Page, and in any case this will likely lead to the problem being even worse twelve months down the line.
 * 2) Continue running the jokey hooks through part of April 2 - there are already plenty of naysayers when it comes to bending the rules for a day (boo!), and doing this is just giving them more ammunition.
 * 3) Dump them - not really fair to good-faith contributors, and likely to discourage participation next time around.
 * 4) Rewrite the hooks to conform to standard DYK guidelines, and run as regular items - seems a bit of a waste.
 * 5) Larger updates - adding more than the normal number of items per update may be doable, if there aren't that many more submissions, but it's likely to leave the Main Page looking decidedly unbalanced.
 * 6) More updates - editors added the content expecting it to appear for at least six hours. Cutting that time short-changes them a bit.
 * My personal preference is #5 if viable, #4 if not. It depends how many more submissions are made before the deadline. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

6. Ah, it's already been discussed to some degree above, and I agree more with their solution: More updates, rather than longer ones. :) 21:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cram as much as possible. - --Boston (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like option #6, rapid updating. I hope that DYK bot back online by then because it'll be hard to keep on top of this manually.  Royal broil  02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to pick the best, and run them for longer. I think our aim should be to make the April 1 main page as surprising and unbelievable as possible (while still strictly accurate), even if that means there's a chance that my submission might not make it.  --Amble (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Several of these hooks had been placed in the regular DYK noms and were taken out by someone (usually me) with the expectation that they will run on April Fool's Day. It's not fair to people who really deserved these DYK credits. I think we somehow have to run all of them! This overflow is unexpected - last year we barely had enough to run 2 groups for 12 hours!  Royal broil  03:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I personaly like the idea from when i asked this same question earlier, to do about 4 rounds, and then if there are more that that many noms, continue them while part of the world is still on April 1st. --Found5dollar (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or we could try to combine as many as we can such as was just done with "Holyland" and "Egypt."--Found5dollar (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the solution agreed on for the hooks, will an exception be made for regular DYK for any that are left out? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An exception for non-used DYK hooks are beyond the scope of this area. Why don't you start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know? I still think we should do some rapid rounds. We occasionally do it for regular DYK when it gets backed up, so it's considered an acceptable practice.  Royal broil  00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this is even being discussed, isn't there a principle that says Wikipedia is there for the reader, not for the editor? Run the best hooks/articles, obviously. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Those who don't make it still have the satisfaction of having added valuable content to Wikipedia, isn't that reward enough? Lampman (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A combination of 5' and 6 should do the trick. As many hooks as possible, reduced time on main page. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "editors have in some instances already been waiting 10-11 months to see their article on the Main Page" is actually a big problem. We should not allow an 11-month delay for DYK stuff, it makes no sense. 5-6 would be ideal, though we might have to do 3 next year. Wizardman  20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because then some people will wait with starting articles until it fits into a that time window. Also, someone else might beat them to the punch and disqualify their planned article.  Royal broil  02:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

clean up
can we delete or move arround the nominations that we have ruled out? the page is very cluttered and it would help to be able to see what has already been ok-ed as to be on the page, what has been rejected, and what is in limbo.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with Volume
When we have a AFD DYK hook that has been made recently enough for regular DYK, consider using it there if possible. From a submitter's standpoint, one of the appeals of AFD DYK is its a 2nd chance to get an expired noms accepted. --Boston (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * that is a very good point. For instance, the radio hat article hasn't even been published yet.We may want to also suspend nominations soon so we can concentrate on what we have.-- (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suspend nominations? Fat chance.  Even a joke about suspending nominations was reverted.  April Fool's Day is serious business! --Boston (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Radio Hat article is finished but I was waiting to see what the April Fools competition would be. I am holding off so if it doesn't make the April Fools group, it can run as a regular DYK. If it is selected and I get hit by a bus; you have my permission to move it to article space. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

re organize page?
should we reorganize the page again? We could make sections for the hooks that have been besided upon(ex. Holyland and Egypt), the ones that are just incase(ex. Hadio Hat), and the ones we are still working on getting a hook for, so that is is easier to see howmany hooks we have and such.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Change orthography
How far should we be allowed to go in changing the orthography of entries? I'm thinking particularly about capitalisation and italics. In many cases this will make the whole difference between a joke that actually works and one that doesn't. This goes for articles such as Han solo, Land of Green Ginger, Hedgehog Pie, Lust Control, For the Love of Ray J and Asleep in the Bread Aisle (in Asher Roth). Lampman (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We should go in favor of making the joke. Who cares about little things like capitalization if it's going to ruin the hook?  Royal broil  01:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, I think it's permissible to ignore minor MOS issues on AFDay. Lampman (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I've been enforcing MOS issues when they don't interfere with the joke. Art LaPella (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call, Art, only enforce if they don't interfere with the joke.  Royal broil  02:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

creative template
I think somebody who likes to work in the template area should come up with a different template announcing the DYK posting for this day... something a little different?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I whipped something together. It's pretty much the same as before, with a smiley face. I can try to make a laughing face by Wednesday. We could also use a clown picture. Oh, and I should be able to do the same for the tagging template that goes on article talk pages. Feel free to make any changes; it's at User:Shubinator/DYKAFcredit.


 * Shubinator (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was thinking of how I would change the smiley face, and I think it's best as it is now. I can't think of an easy way to make a (clearly) laughing smiley face. I also thought about the article talk page tag, and it's probably best to leave the normal tag so GimmeBot doesn't get confused if any April Fool's DYK articles become GAs or FAs. Shubinator (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think File:718smiley.svg suits it nicely. – Juliancolton  | Talk 04:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made tweaked DYKmake and DYKnom templates for the day. They're at Template:DYKAFnom and Template:DYKAFmake. They work similarly to the current templates, but for April Fool's. Oh, and one extra tidbit...when you click on "give", at the screen that pops up, it has a field for "article1" instead of "article". The extra part is that if someone has done a double nom, you can add "article2", "article3", etc fields (up to "article6"), and all the articles will show up on the user talk page message. You'll need to change the section header accordingly. I haven't done much testing, so feel free to have at 'em. Shubinator (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed all of the hooks to use this template. Thanks for your help!  Royal broil  12:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Lesbians
Can we have some input on the two SS Lesbian articles. Firstly, neither has been verified as to length (should be OK). Then we need to decide which hook to go with. WP:LGBT seem happy with the hooks (great sense of humour there) so it just needs a few more pairs of eyes as per RoyalBroil's comments. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up?
Are we supposed to be keeping this page as some sort of record for posterity? Or can the Non-eligible Candidates section be blanked, now that those hooks will never be used for anything? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They get archived, like they are right now.  Royal broil  04:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)