Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2010

discussion moved from project page

• For AF 2010, I suggest playing with the underlying intent of DYK -- and highlight some articles that as of now have been stubs the LONGEST. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Only if they are expanded 5 fold. We don't abandon the normal DYK rules, only minor modifications are allowed (specifically the 5 days to nominate rule is waved in favor of new/expanded since the previous DYK. There are plenty of people who want to get rid of April Fool's Day altogether because they feel the day it's not compatible with a serious encyclopedia. I obviously disagree. Royalbroil 19:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I completely agree with you, Royalbroil. My suggestion is that the "newest articles" being highlighted for DYK were actually started several years ago. Now to check the suggestion below on EME, which I hope will qualify for AF-DYK. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• i just have a question about the rules this year. Is there anything we can do to keep the madness of the last few days before April 1 from happening again? Some suggestions i have thought of are we reduce the time from a year to maybe 6 months over which the article can be expanded, we figure out some sort of better orginization for the page (kind of like how we had it organized at the end of last year), or to be very drastic, simply chose hooks on a first come first serve basis. Are any of these ok ideas? Any other suggestions?--Found5dollar (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I say articles submitted for April Fools must be submitted at least 2 weeks in advance. (Or even a month.) If is less than that, then the article still has a chance of appearing via normal channels.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to CLOSE nominations for 2010 AF DYK

I think we should not allow nominations for 2010 AF-DYK until 2010. I make this proposal for several reasons:

1. If we have it open, then people may not use the normal DYK option on marginal articles hoping to land that AF-DYK spot
2. If we have it open, we may end up with people making proposals in June 2009, but have left long before April Fools 2010, thus won't be around to work on or make the requisite changes.
3. If we have it open, those great ideas that get nominated today will become blase by April 2010. I mean, I think we have a great AF-DYK in Nebraska, but come April Fools day, we may have seen that nom so long that it has lost its appeal.
4. If we have this open now, this list is going to become unmanageably long, as everybody will make noms now. If you have an idea for an article to be submitted, you can wait to submit it closer to April Fools 2010. If you forget or leave WP, then that is one fewer article that has to be rejected.
5. AF-DYK is sometimes viewed as a second chance at DYK, by having this open now, people may not try normal DYK.

For those reasons, I suggest we archive the nominations until January, and wait until then.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say I agree with all 5 reasons of Spartacus. I think we should wait until 2010 to submit April Fools DYK nominations. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose closing off nominations Why eliminate possibilities for articles created during 9 months of the year? Why should an article that happened to be created during the wrong time of the year be excluded from April Fool's consideration? Last year's nominations had few until after January anyhow. In prior years, we barely had enough to make up 2 sets! We ran 2 groups of 5 hooks for 12 hours each. For all we know, last year might have been a fluke. Royalbroil 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We are not closing off the nomination of articles that area created now, we are closing off the needless 9 months worth of discussions surrounding those articles. Come January, if somebody wants to nominate an article written in May 09, that's fine, let them. We are only saying that we should not encourage people to nominate articles right now.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You could always just get rid of that "from Wikipedia's newest articles" – which won't be relevant given that some of the articles will be over 11 months old – and for one day a year run with facts from any article. – iridescent 15:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

that's not what I am saying, that is already a given with the AF-DYK. What I am saying is that we should hold off on accepting nominations until closer to April Fools for AF-2010 for the reasons listed above. After January, we can start taking all nominations since the start of the year, but that "great" AF-DYK from June will have lost some appeal by the time April 2010 comes around. We'll get tired of talking about it, and there might not be anybody who worked on the article still on WP in 10 months.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that objection. A great DYK from June will still be new to readers next April, and aren't readers the main objective of Wikipedia? If everyone on the article is gone by then, we can still run the hook without them. The author would miss the thrill of seeing his work on the Main Page, but if that is the problem, he doesn't have to submit his hook in the first place. Art LaPella (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If a hook sits here for 10 months we have several issues: First, the author who created said hook may no longer be here to work on said article should it need tweaking in 10 months. Second, if the article is cluttering this page for 10 months, it might not be as fresh to those who make the selection/determination as to which articles are included because the novelty has worn off on us. Third, if we have this open now for suggestions, this list will become unbearably large. It would virtually collapse under its own weight. Fourth, it would become a target simply create AF-DYK's, and we would end up having to discuss them, ad nasium. We haven't finalized what next years DYK criteria will be. While it is probably the same or similar to last years, you never know. Things change. Who knows the anti-AF crowd may win out or force certain guidelines on the AF pages. There is simply too much unknown.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is, take out the time limit completely and make it any appropriate factoid from any article, whether it be a stub created on March 31 or an article dating back to Nupedia days. Since the time factor goes out the window anyway at April, there's no sense limiting it to the last year. – iridescent 17:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a COMPLETELY different proposal than this. This has nothing to do with the time period for which we allow DYK's based upon their creation, but rather about cluttering up this page for 10 months.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's veered off at a tangent, but the central core is the same; an opposition to closing off this page. Instead, I'd throw it open for anyone to nominate anything they deem appropriate – regardless of article size, creation date et al – at any time; then, come Feb–March 2010, we go through everything that's been suggested and decide which to run with. – iridescent 18:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rules Question

The April fools DYK rules state that "DYK articles are allowed to be taken from the year prior to April Fool's Day, as long as they have not previously featured on DYK." I have been discussing with another reviewer and we have a disagreement about what this means. Does this imply that the article had to have been expanded over 5 days at any point in the past year, or that it had to be 5x as large as it was on April 2nd the year before, no matter how long it took to get it that large? what is the consensus on this?--Found5dollar (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the rule adopted should be one allowing an expansion in 5 days, any time over the 365 days before 1 April. Otherwise, genuine new article will be swamped by slowly expanded articles. —innotata 20:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my interpretation too. A concerted effort to expand the article 5x in a short time, but such expansion any time in previous year, as long as the nom was within the normal timescale. Mjroots (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. i guess my interpenetration was wrong. Sorry. We really should better explain this, and other, rules in the header of the nom page.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The rules have always been interpreted as throwing out the 5 day part completely. So you could slowly expand throughout the year and be okay, as long as it has been expanded 5x. Royalbroil 12:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. we really need to find better wording for the rule if that is how it was intended.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And should we keep the rule? I think the 5 days, but any time in the year rule is better—and all but a few of these articles meet this rule. —innotata 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now is the time to propose a change for next year - otherwise people will make plans on articles for DYK and assume that the rules are the same. It's not fair to change the rules after someone has let their hook come out of the queues and be put in hold until April 1, 2011. Royalbroil 23:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is the point?

Don't you honestly think by having this page turning up in the normal circuit of WP, that people will do exactly what I've done? Read this and figure out what ideas you have in mind, so as to know what's gonna be done to the Main page?

Personally, I think it's about time we abandoned the idea of playing April fools gags on people and concentrated on the Encyclopedia we're supposed to be, not the joke that the media seems to think we are.

If you're gonna do anything, take the discussion off wiki, so as you don't give the game away.

BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 13:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what this is about. The joke here is that everything should seem like a hoax, despite being genuine. —innotata 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't know... We've had articles created on April 1st which have been missed for years, one subsequently turned up, on the main page iirc. Anyone remember Lame Duck Disease??? Let's just do a normal main page and give the impression of what we are, hey? BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

[Citation needed]. Show me one example of a hoax article making it to the main page on April 1 and maybe I'll take you seriously. Again, I think you're missing the point; these are not hoax articles, they're articles on unusual topics and they have to be scrupulously verified before they go on the main page. And for the record, Wikipedia has never had an article called "Lame duck disease". – iridescent 13:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) As far as I am aware, it has. A coupla years ago, I created a Stub for Veterinary Medicine, and something relating to Lame duck disease came up during the search, I believe it was probably under it's "supposed" scientific name, but I recall adding it to the stubs list I was creating, until I discovered it was a hoax. If I can get my stub sorting page undeleted by the admins, I will refer you to the article and provide the proof you requested. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, ages ago, hoax articles were shown on the main page. But they were never popular, and we now don't need them. —innotata 13:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Barking's original point is that the April Fool's Day fun should be hidden from everyone's view. Of course that sounds a lot like the whole secret cabal that us admins supposedly belong to. I think that April Fool's Day helps to promote expansion of the encyclopedia in different directions, not distracts from it. Even if you disagree with me, so what if we have a little harmless fun one day per year. Royalbroil 23:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Innotata: A subjective claim. I enjoyed them when I was new to Wikipedia, and it was the April 1st listings that pulled me into the DYK in the first place. As a result, I now have much more awareness of "new" articles, and what Wikipedia is trying to achieve as a community. That might not have happened were it not for the April 1st DYK. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I said? —innotata 14:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(As to the public visibility of this page) Wikipedia's front page is viewed by literally MILLIONS of people on April 1st. This page is viewed by maybe a couple of hundred people a year. The percentage of people who may be un-fooled because this page is public is quite utterly negligable. And, yeah - for the past 5 years, every single April 1st story has been true and accurate - and adheres to all of the standard rules for Wikipedia articles. The only thing that changes is that we're a little more lax about how we write our "hooks" for that day - and we actively seek things that (while 100% true) seem 100% false. We try to make people THINK we're perpetrating silly hoaxes when the truth is that the world is a deeply weird place - and out of three million articles, there are plenty of hard-to-believe-but-true things. SteveBaker (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)