Talk:Ima Hogg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox

We talked about them (in archives, I hate them, and they're not required), but since it will probably come up again, should we have a new discussion about consensus on the infobox, as here? If other opinions predominate, I'll cave :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one is necessary for this article (and I think it looks especially bad with the only picture we have), but I won't complain overly much if consensus says we need one. Karanacs (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on my talk, I have no strong opinion about these fickle boxes. They can get extraordinarily large (as here), and with a concise lead, at least in this particular instance, an infobox seems superfluous. --Kakofonous (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like no one is willing to fight over it ... but it sure adds a lot of clutter to our one image :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an infobox is not needed here. Nor is an image needed of what her name suggests (unless someone comes up with a really good one!).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering how this got to be a featured article without having an infobox. What do people have against infoboxes, anyway? They provide a summary of biographical information. I'd say that's a useful function, even if it's aesthetically unpleasing. Not everyone wants to do math in their head to figure out what age the person died at, or skim through the entire article to find out the person's occupation, education, etc. Fuzzform (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no part of WP:WIAFA that requires infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't Mess with Texas

So we don't get into trouble with the second most populous state in the union, can you Texans verify that we're within acceptable bounds for the highly respected Miss Ima? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Texan, I'm not the least bit offended at all. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither am I, Ms. Hogg is a part of our history and we shouldn't be hiding that. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no problems here with a native Houstonian :) Perhaps "who brought culture and class to Houston, Texas" should be "who helped bring culture and class to Houston, Texas". Just a thought. Postoak (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm offended...that I wasn't asked to participate. :D That blurb was funny as hell! Leobold1 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, mind your language when in Miss Ima's house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools Day

So, this is the Wikipedia front page joke for 2008?Mightymouseman (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Completely unnecessary, Not even a good April Fools joke. Very hack. User:Codymcox 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The blurb is fantastic, looks like the kind of thing I'd delete as nonsense. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But she was real. LOL. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Funnier blurb is at User:Raul654/test. Updated. Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Woah, she's real?146.115.228.187 (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools Day, yay! I love these articles. --Sharkface217 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cute article. Takes a while to realise it is an April Fools joke ;-) HagenUK (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming the person is real (judging by outside coverage of her) but that her article isn't really of the importance made here? --Jacob ^Talk

She was real, its in Texas textbooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.74.229 (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC) This can't be real? Awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.86.135 (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is a joke? is this person real or not?!? There are real external references, could someone explain this? 61.69.2.166 (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The joke is that it's a real person . . . but she's a funny real person. Come on . . . a "storied ostrich farmer"? That's classic!-69.122.86.88 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has finally come to its senses (of humor, that is). Morganfitzp (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A painfully bad, probably committee written sense of humour. An April Fools joke article should be vaguely believable, be a clever, flowing story and work an unwitting reader into a state of wonder, annoyance or something similar. This blurb is just a random jumble of not very funny things masquerading as wit. I suppose it could serve as a mildly humorous depiction of wikipedia's pedantic dorkiness trying to make a joke at itself. But I'm pretty sure that's thinking far harder than whoever made this intended their audience to, or indeed did themselves. 72.179.63.12 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to write next year's entry; we've just been waiting for you to come along and sign up !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry SandyGeorgia, I was unduly harsh before... I didn't realize the blurb was all factual things worded to sound strange. There is an element of cleverness about it... I think I was just grumpy because someone deleted my comment in elephant intelligence's talk page. 72.179.63.12 (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree w. 72.179.63.12. Unfunny. Sorry, SandyGeorgia; you've put a lot of effort into it, but this is http://uncyclopedia.org/ material, not April's Fool material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.27.2.130 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a joke. Take it from a non-Texas person: I heard of this woman years ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual article isn't a joke. The blurb on the Wikipedia main page is. 128.83.167.129 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that the actual joke is that such an implausible-sounding person is actually real, right? - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems a tradition is being established of taking quirky people from history and making them our April Fools Day featured article. I have to confess I didn't get the jokes here immediately, but the life story is still interesting. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's funny because most non-Texans (non-Houstonians, for that matter) would never believe that there actually existed a woman named Ima Hogg. The rest of the blurb is just as ridiculous as the name. Tmrobertson (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, Kakofonous, and all who worked on this article and the Main Page blurb - wonderful! NorCalHistory (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How about adding a banner to the top of the page: {{seealso|Talk:Ima Hogg#April Fools Day}} ? Or, "If you have come here from the Main Page, Happy April Fools' Day! See the talkpage for more. --Elonka 07:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia did a similar joke last year. (Here it is.) I take it this is going to be our new April Fool's Day tradition? - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one seems opposed, I went ahead and added a banner.[1] In my opinion, this makes it a bit more, "Surprise!" funny, though of course The Committee is welcome to review and critique my sense of humor.  ;) --Elonka 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, could also add a link to Wikipedia:April fools. Any thoughts? Or would that make it too cluttered? --Elonka 09:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the banner, which I think was a distraction. It spoils to joke to a great degree, and the wording "Ima Hogg was a real person, though not as described there" implies that the main page blurb contains falsehoods, which it technically does not.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I added it back, because I think it's funnier with the banner. Wanna arm wrestle?  :) I did tweak the wording a bit. Can we find a compromise, Wikipedia-style? --Elonka 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary at all. Someone seeing this without reading the banner's actual content might assume the article is a joke. Maybe. But more importantly, let people have the fun of finding out for themselves, instead of whacking them over the head with the gag that this is a real article after all; hand-holding is not necessary. Steve ^{T • C} 11:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to edit war about it, but I think the banner is a better idea, especially for our international readers who may not be familiar with what April Fools is. Also, I gotta point out that I'm a professional game developer and puzzle designer, and I work with this kind of stuff every day, so I've got a pretty good idea of what's fun and what's frustrating. It's my opinion that without the banner, that the page is going to be fun for some, but bewildering to many, and that most people won't get the joke at all. With the banner, I think it's fun to many, and slightly less fun to some. My goal is to make it fun for the maximum number of people, not just the geniuses.  :) I'm open to tweaking the wording though? How about, "Ima Hogg is a real person, and believe it or not, everything it says about her on the Main Page is true! Read on...." --Elonka 11:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fudge it; why not? Steve ^{T • C} 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)So you mean something like this?:

Believe it or not, Ima Hogg was a real person, and everything it says about her on the Main Page is true! For more information, see the talkpage. Read on...

Too much wordiness kinda kills the gag. Steve ^{T • C} 11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. How about we get rid of the link to the talkpage? I've tweaked the banner wording a bit, feel free to tweak more.  :) --Elonka 11:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess I missed the fun while I was sleeping; opposed to any sort of banner, defeats the purpose. No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: A big well done on the main page blurb. I found the best part to be the fact that a large amount of it could be somebody's view of what the article says she did, or presents actual facts such as finding oil on their land. For example:

"Hogg was revered as the "First Lady of Texas", and her name and legacy still thrive today—just ask Ima Pigg, Ima Nut, and Ima Pain, who have all appeared in the U.S. Census." - Great line! True, but written in a way that makes it seem that Pigg, Nut, and Pain were real people as well.

Well done, everyone. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They are real people; see the references. Bzzzzzzzzzzt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I never imagined Wikipedia to be such humourous! tetoz (talk)

Feh! I would look so hot in that frock. Xdenizen (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeida should take itself more seriously. Pranks are fun and all but not for this sort of site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.176.172 (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Serious sites do April Fool's jokes all the time. (Well, insofar as an annual one-day holiday can be "all the time".) - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting we aren't a serious site? Xdenizen (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing worse than humor by committee is discussions like this analyzing humor. ike9898 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, "intellectual"-humour. I've never understood what in the name of Joe is funny about it. You Wikipedia guys must have the life of a shriveled raisin from a stormy part of South-east /ca/Asia. --Kaizer13 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But yet, you're on here reading what these people with "the life of a shriveled raisin" have written. I like the article. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

DELETE NON-NOTABLE OSTRICH RIDER AHURHUR-ABigBlackMan (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Really nice April Fool's joke. It certainly got me! I already knew that Ima Hogg was a real person, and even visited the article a few days ago. What got me was the silly blurb on the front page. So I came here to complain about it and THEN I saw this section about April Fool's!! By the looks of this board, some people could lighten up and stop taking everything so seriously. mahlered (talk)18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If this was funny, I might not complain, but it looks like somebody got on and edited some nonsense into the article. To quote Jerry Seinfied, "It offends me as a COMEDIAN!!!" If you want to do something for April Fools Day, why not just put a description of April Fools Day as the featured story?

I agree it's not funny, it looks like typical vandalism. I'm not against an April Fool's Day joke but if you're going to do one, *do it right.*

Banner

The problem with not having a banner at the top of this article as discussed above is that most people will assume that this is fake and Wikipedia will (unfairly) lose some credibility. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that logic is off since the article is demonstrably real and very well sourced, and the joke is on any fool who can't see that. This banner idea was ill conceived and I'm sorry that it endured for four hours last night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly real and sourced, but that only matters to those who care enough to scroll down to the sources. I think most people will quickly scan over the article, assume that it's fake, and think worse of Wikipedia because of it. This is the fault of their laziness, but it's the reputation of the project that suffers. You can even see on this talk page the comments of people who thought that the article is a bad joke. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake no banner is needed -- it ruins the whole joke. The article is intriguing when you aren't sure if you are being fooled. With the banner -- well, there is no reason to read any more of the article, as the woman just isn't very interesting. She collected antiques; that's nice, so does my mom. 66.152.245.18 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have forgotten to explicitly mention something here: Elonka might or might not be right on this. However, April Fool's Day or not, this is an encyclopaedia; we cannot affect the quality of articles, especially featured articles, and even more so Today's Featured Article. The Main Page is not an article, so a little more latitude is allowed (it's one day, after all), but that's it. Personally, I love the jokes, but disruption is disruption. Previous years have shown that quite clearly, and only in 2007 did the new, "clean" practice begin. I approve that practice. Waltham, The Duke of 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my opinion that without the banner, that the article caused more confusion than mirth, as can be evidenced by many of the comments here. I watched what people were commenting on the page while the banner was up, vs. while the banner was gone, and it seemed that people were more enjoying the joke while the banner was up. Maybe next year we can talk about it a bit more beforehand? I do understand that those involved with making the joke, feel that it's funny, and that they think that anyone who doesn't "get it" is just wrong/misguided/horrible/foolish. However, I have to point out, and again, remember that I do this for a living, that this is a common problem with those who write a joke or a puzzle, is that they usually think it's obvious (sort of a humor-writer's version of WP:OWN). It's not appropriate to then belittle everyone else who doesn't get the joke as being somehow stupid. Better would be to actually get some third-party opinions, and see which version gets the better laugh. :) --Elonka 22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

People are supposed to be confused on April Fools Day; that's the point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Chuckles

Analysing humour - what Wikipedia does best! Babyblue111 (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LOLZ. Seriously. Wikipedia: So much comedy gold, so little tolerance for humor and joie de vivre. :) jengod (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg

Was she really? 86.129.102.228 (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. There are also rumors that she was related to J.D. Hogg. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture

So, who is in the picture? And may I just add, I hate 'emcee' in place of MC. Travis Garris (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the picture at the top of the article? It is a picture of Ms. Hogg. 76.124.52.62 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ura Hogg

does the article really need to talk about the fictional sister Ura Hogg so much?

Yep. Most Texas schoolkids know about "Ima and Ura Hogg" so this article needs to debunk that myth. Karanacs (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see mentioning it in the article but i think mentioning it in the overview, in the the name section (where it likely belongs), and in the Awards, recognition and legacy section is a bit much.harlock_jds (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A bigger omission, I think, is the omission of any mention of Ima's uncle, Boss Hogg. 68.13.240.14 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Typical Liberal Bias

Typical of the liberal, anti-Christian, America-hating bias of Wikipedia's Demrat Socialist authoritarian rulers, you failed to mention that she voted Republican and hated tax-and-spend anti-freedom liberals. Nice! Njsamizdat (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your discussion of on the Ima Hogg article was foolish. What has politics got to do with her? if she voted for Republican Its a biography. Stop your nonsensical attitude. And stop accusing us editors of being liberal. It's an encyclopaedia not some right-wing organistation. If you can provide sources that she did give money to the party and was a member then by all means put it in from a reliable source. Stop and accusing us editors of being "anti-American". We're all her to do a good job. LOTRrules (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blast those demrats(Oh I get it HAH) for sullying the good, god-loving Republican name of Ima Hogg! In fact, let's get all huffed up on the talk page and not do anything about this missing piece of info(Which I assume is sourced) on the article!- ABigBlackMan (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, LOTR, he was accusing wikipedia of being left-wing, not right-wing. Oops!- ABigBlackMan (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our anti-, -hating, pussy, organistation, knob overlords! User:scbomber 16:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"And stop accusing us editors of being liberal" did you read this sentence ABigBlackMan? I knew he was accusing Wikipedia of being left-wing. I just meant that that he wanted to turn it right-wing since he was accusing us of being too liberal. So where is the "opps" in that? And when did I insult the US? It was just the party. LOTRrules (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite this sentence you sought to reassure him(rather violently) that this website was not liberal by telling him it was not a "right-wing organization". Furthermore, there is no "opps" in that. Just an afternote.-ABigBlackMan (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right I shouldn't have done that. I'll score out the bad stuff but I meant that Wikipedia was not going to turn out to become a right-wing organisation by his ranting. I apologise once more. LOTRrules (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Miss Ima was a Democrat.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To state Ima Hogg was a Democrat is misleading to most people in the 21st century. A Texas Democrat during Ima's lifetime didn't indicate liberalness by any means. Among other things, the Texas Democrats were the party of segregation. Like most of the Southern states, virtually every politician holding office in Texas was a Democrat. This only began to change in the last decade of Ima's life with politicians like John Connally, who as a Democrat had served as the Texas Governor, switching to join the Republican party.TL36 (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

To be dealt with

• This edit introduces WP:OVERLINKing and breaches WP:MOSDATE, needs to be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Caught it. Maralia (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reminder to doublecheck this later; I'm unconvinced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this works either way. Karanacs (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Also review the source wording on this, which I think was accurate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• This disturbs the flow of the prose IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Great job hacking...

...all those university, historical, and reference sites!

The references actually give the appearance of checking out.

And how did you ever get R. R. Bowker to go along with creating all those phony ISBNs (e.g. ISBN 1881089916)? Why, some of them even show up in online bookstore and library catalog searches. You must have been planning this one for years. 204.11.149.158 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ummm.... haha I think. Thingg^⊕⊗ 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For those that don't get it, this article is real. It's the blurb on the main page that's the joke. -- Schapel (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As has been noted elsewhere, everything appearing in the blurb is true. Raul654 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm . . .

The Wikipedia editors' puckish sense of humor might have gone down better if they weren't such a bunch of nit-picking pedants the other 364 days of the year. Cranston Lamont (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Craston Lamont. 76.123.165.120 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We're still nit-picky, but sometimes we get to be almost funny too ;) Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That misplaced apostrophe in the section heading below this one isn't funny :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well played. Well played. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian's

Please get a sense of humour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glandrid (talk • contribs) 17:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please get a sense of apostrophes. 76.124.52.62 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Redundant headers

I am tired of seeing every second editor add a heading to this page just to make a single comment, often pointless, and usually one that has already been made before, too. This page needs to be tidied up somehow. Waltham, The Duke of 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is a joke. ;) jengod (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. There is a problem, but it is a small one. In any case, this section isn't really redundant, is it? Waltham, The Duke of 18:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page items are often redundant over and over again too many times.

That was a joke, by the way. Cranston Lamont (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please get it right; this is a featured talk page and must remain MoS-compliant. Many talk page items are quite often very redundant over and over again far too many times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But Sandy, no featured talk page nomination has ever failed solely on MOS issues! Redundant prose that is very repetitive over and over again might be grounds for non-promotion, but only if you can provide many many examples of the supposed very repetitive and redundant phrasing.. Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop over-repeating yourselves again and again far too many times in a redundant fashion; it is no longer (very) funny. (In the meanwhile, editors keep aggravating the problem; look how many headings there are below already. (sigh)) Waltham, The Duke of 20:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I Second the Reduntant Headers Issue

I mean, c'mon people. Not so many headers, please. --B

Excellent Article

I am pleased that this year there will have been 365 articles worthy of the Featured status. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a 366-day year, I assume you're not counting today's offering <<snark>>.

Cranston Lamont (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle

The Ima Hogg article has made it to the Houston Chronicle web site. J.R. Gonzales’s Bayou City History has the story. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Lock the page for 24 hours, quick! Vandalism sprees are occurring. Fuzzform (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Too many editors stepping on each others' toes! Lock it down! LocutusMIT (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be standard practice to lock featured articles on April fool's Day. Seems like a time when when Wikipedia is rife with vandalism. Fuzzform (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When is someone going to protect this page? The vandalism spree will continue until another article appears on the main page (i.e., for the next 8 hours EST). Fuzzform (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The "vandalism spree" you speak of is constant for most featured articles on the main page, and isn't unique to Ima Hogg or April Fools articles in general. Leebo ^T/C 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion here...and anyways, it doesn't hurt to pull up them sleeves and put in some good elbow grease. Just click this every 5 seconds :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done, chaps!

Congratulations to SandyGeorgia and all the others who worked on this. Some of us Brits do have a sense of humour that can appreciate a good April Fool's joke – and also those that aren't!

Although I have to admit that I'm puzzled as to how many of the references are authentic - as a non-American I can't always detect which of these very strange stories are actually the real thing.

I followed some of the links - did you actually pepper the Web with false webpages such as the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health and the University of Houston page, etc? Or are cited articles about people and places such as 'Big Jim' Hogg, Thomas Elisha Hogg Sid McMath and Jim Hogg County the real thing? It's hard for some of us to tell :-) Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazing as it is, it's ALL true. In Texas, well,...we're a little "different". Karanacs (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the day is almost over, and we made the Houston paper: everything in the article is 100% true and referenced, and everything in the mainpage blurb is true but phrased so that it could be interpreted in a misleading way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it really true that her father "Big Jim" made her scrap bubblegum, was thrown from a train, etc.? I think that's explicitly false. Fuzzform (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he wasn't thrown from a train, and you didn't read that on Wiki, either. Check your facts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking of the main blurb. Please don't insult me by telling me to "check my facts". I had nothing to do with the creation of this article. Fuzzform (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere on Wiki does it say he was thrown from a train, as you stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One of my sources definitely said that Ima was forced to scrape chewing gum from furniture when her family moved into the Texas Governor's Mansion (it was apparently in pitiful shape). Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article: "On January 26, 1905, Jim Hogg suffered an injury in a train accident. For the next year Ima nursed him as he struggled to regain his health, but on March 3, 1906, she discovered her father dead in his bed."
• The blurb: "He was later thrown from his seat on a moving train and perished"

Indeed, nowhere claims he was thrown from the train, just a chair therein. The blurb is intentionally misleading (note: "and perished" is distinctly different from "and perished as a result"). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell...?

This is a featured article, yet the summary on the main page looks like a hoax, having almost nothing to do with this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah... I just noticed the date on my signature. Nevermind. I am concerned, however, that people of English-speaking countries that don't observe April Fool's Day won't understand the joke. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Every fact in the main page blurb is true. Taken out of context, in some cases, but true. This is the second year WP has featured a real article with an interesting blurb on April Fool's Day. Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For those keeping score, last year's was George Washington (inventor). —Verrai 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has finally been taking lessons from Uncyclopedia, methinks XD --Is this fact...? 23:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything Wikipedia has said about Ima Hogg is 100% true. If you think otherwise, please be specific. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg (again)

Copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia

I read the main page blurb. Thought "what the...?" Read the article. *Still* couldn't decide. Read the talk page. Hadn't made up my mind. So I looked at the article history, and while the article was created several years ago, there was a flurry of activity recently which had me doubting. Then went and read the archive of the talk page before I was finally convinced! What a job, and an awesome collaboration. Well done! --Stéphane Charette (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Stéphane; since you read the talk page archives, you know that (other than cattle prodding) my role was very small. Karanacs did most of the writing and research, The Fat Man gets most of the credit for the blurb, and many many editors pitched in to help. The only intelligent thing I did was to archive the talk page before mainpage day :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, Madame Sandy, Miss Ima owes you a great deal of thanks!. You were the one who picked the article, picked the contributors, browbeat said contributors into contributing (including rearranging my wikischedule ;) ), kept discussions focused and on-topic, wrote some of the text, made sure the article was MOS-compliant, etc, etc, etc. The archival idea was pretty smart, too. It is really nice to hear that we've managed to bamboozle people on this scale. Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually ... Corvus cornix gets the credit for kicking it off. After we wrote the Dispatch, and I put out notes to many editors, WikiProjects and article talk pages, nothing happened; I was getting nervous. Then, while browsing WP:RSN, I happened to see this post, which kicked it into gear. Corvus was the first editor to show an interest in any of the 4/1 ideas. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Whew

Like last year, some got it, some didn't; some liked it, some didn't. Talk:George Washington (inventor)#Featured Article: April 1. Unlike last year, Miss Ima was mentioned by the Houston press. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Exceedingly well written; came through mainpage day with minimal changes, although we did miss a few wikilinks and have a few stray words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

March 7 version, before the push to featured status began. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still can't believe we did it in such a short time. This was so much fun, we ought to do it again in a few months—pick a random article, recruit most of the FA reviewers, and let loose :) Karanacs (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There were about 150,000 page views on the Ima Hogg article on April 1. This is up from about 300 views a day in March 2008. Here is a tool for article traffic statistics. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hogg and Rubinstein

Very interesting article, but I have one minor nit to crack: it says that she had an encounter with the "elderly retired pianist Arthur Rubinstein" at a concert celebrating her 90th birthday. Assuming this was in the year of her 90th birthday, this would be 1972. Rubinstein could conceivably be described as "elderly" (although younger than Hogg), but he certainly wasn't "retired". He didn't retire from the concert stage until 1976, and continued to make recordings and give the occasional concert afterwards. If you don't believe his Wikipedia article, you can look it up in Loppert, Max (2001). Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John (eds.). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). I was bold and deleted the "retired". --Maegara (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what our original source says: if it says he was retired, we don't "do the math" (that's original research). In any case, leaving it out causes no harm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ura Hamm

April Fool's day has no place in an information economy...Stop, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Lather (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do, immediately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ura Hogg

This article only mentions that Ima did not have a sister named Ura three times. I think it should mention it at least twice per paragraph. --ElPeruano (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Who named her?

This Wikipedia article seems a little bit vague about whether her mother or father (or both) picked out her name. Her father said in 1899:

"The truth of the matter is that my girl's name is Ima Hogg. She was named by her mother. Her mother was reading a book somewhere in which one of the characters which interested her exceptionally was named Ima. About that time the little girl came along and she was named Ima. We never noticed the play of the name until it was called to our attention. The boys all have rational names. They are Tom, Mike and Will."[2][3]

Maybe we should mention in the article (e.g. in a footnote) that, "he said she was named by her mother"? Unless there is any indication to the contrary.Ferrylodge (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We also know that Jim Hogg enjoyed practical jokes (including on the press, sorry, can't recall where I read that), so we have to take care to use the best researched sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I was thinking of adding the following to footnote 8:

Governor Hogg has said that “she was named by her mother.” Stevens Point Daily Journal (1899-09-09), quoted by The Genealogue (2006-10-22).

How does that look?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't get anything on your second link; unless you've seen the paper, I don't want to trust a blog. Especially after April Fools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are excerpts from two three different newspapers.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you're accessing those links; I'm not getting anything. They all seem to be a repeat of the same story. Again, we know he liked to play practical jokes, and with the press, so let's wait for the Texas folk to weigh in with the well researched sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC) PS, I know Karanacs usually isn't online on weekends. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. All three of those links are from newspaperarchive.com. You have to pay a fee. But you can see that the Google excerpts confirm the quote from the Genealogue. Anyway, I look forward to hearing from the Texas folk. I know better than to get in an edit war with SandyGeorgia!!! :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, how do we sync the book her mother was reading with the poem her uncle wrote? Do we know if they're referring to the same thing? The stories are contradictory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but.... The Fate of Marvin, and Other Poems was 274 pages long.[4]Ferrylodge (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The books didn't really say which parent picked out the name. The tour guide at Varner-Hogg just said Ima was named after the poem (again, didn't say which parent). I'd feel better getting that kind of information from a biography of Jim Hogg rather than a newspaper article, but I don't have easy access to one of those right now. However, if it's just added to a footnote and not to the article text, that would be fine for now until we can verify one way or the other. Karanacs (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable about it all round; remember, we found numerous errors about her even in The New York Times archives. Seems newspapers didn't have standards on reliability back then, and adding on to that the fact that Jim Hogg played jokes on them, I'm just not comfortable about random newspaper info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. When I get a chance I'll zip over to Yale and thoroughly get to the bottom of this. New Haven's only a couple towns over. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing at Yale. I'll make a few modest edits. See what you think.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can has a better lead image

Elcobbola and Mytwocents should be interested to know that the MFAH archivist is sending me a version of our lead image with a much higher resolution. Apparently, it a better representation of the museum's "lovely sepia-toned print." I'll upload it once I receive it, but I will need help with the copyright tag.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I'm looking forward to seeing the new image! Mytwocents (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I finally uploaded the higher-res, sepia-toned image. Hope it looks okay.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk changes

I don't understand these random talk page changes that are occurring without regard for regular editors; when I'm looking for something in archives, I want to see dates, and I hate archive pages that only have numbers, because you have to click on each one to find the date you're looking for. I reverted the changes to talk page design that were made without discussion, and I don't see the benefit in archives being buried in numbers under a big template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Sandy's revert

Redacted - see this if you want to read what was here. Redacted because the harnvb can be used in conjunction with cite book and cite web, all that is required is a tiny tweak. Thus, cake, eat, too. Eh? Ehhhh? Come oonnnn. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate names

Oh, for God's sake, I cannot believe my edit was reverted (with a pointed admonishment to discuss it on the talk page). I removed a repetition of something which was addressed by AN ENTIRE PARAGRAPH, two paragraphs previously, and which is also addressed in the lede. This may be a featured article, but repetition for the sake of repetition is not a hallmark of engaging prose. I have reverted SandyGeorgia's edit, because it doesn't add anything except redundancy to the article. Horologium (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the text; please gain consensus before changing it (see WP:OWN#Featured articles). The lead is always a summary of the text, so it is not unusual for key items to be repeated there. I can't see where else the text you are deleting is repeated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the third paragraph of the "name" section reads:

Contrary to popular belief, Ima did not have a sister named Ura.[11] Texas legend insists that when Jim Hogg ran for re-election as Texas governor in 1892 he often travelled with Ima and a friend of hers and introduced them as his daughters Ima and Ura. Ima Hogg maintained throughout her life that this never happened.[12] She was frequently forced to dispel the myth; hundreds of people wrote her letters inquiring whether her name was real and if she really had a sister named Ura.[10] The Kansas City Star even invented another sister, Hoosa.[13]

Now, if you could explain to me why the text I have removed from the fifth paragraph of the name section (including the incorrect lore that Jim Hogg had named his two daughters "Ima Hogg" and "Ura Hogg".) is needed as well. I clearly explained my edits (with fairly verbose edit summaries), and I don't see how removing repetitive text is either a major edit or something which degrades the quality of the article. I understand the concern about maintaining the quality of featured articles, but please don't assume that everyone who is not a regular editor of a page is out to trash an FA. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this, but it looks really amateurish to include such repetition. Horologium (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with what you're asserting, from a narrative standpoint. The third para is talking about her personal experiences, and the fifth para is about current use of the incorrect lore. That doesn't seem like repetition to me. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)