Please use this page for discussions surrounding the creation of a Featured Article for April Fool's day 2007

Areas of work needed to complete the front page are:

Ground rules for this activity along with a list or participants may be found on the Main talk page.

The Mission[edit]

In the past, various unusual articles have been improved to featured article status. These include exploding whale, heavy metal umlaut, Japanese toilet, spoo, and Joshua A. Norton. People seeing some of these articles listed on the Main Page sometimes believe that it is a joke, when in fact, these articles are well-written and quite deserving of featured article status.

An unusual article (such as exploding toad or Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch) will be edited up to Featured article status and listed on the Main Page on 1 April, 2007. The "recently featured" sentence could be changed to "other featured", and link to the above-mentioned unusual featured articles.

Given the amount of time it takes to bring an article up to Featured article status, an alternative solution would be to use an article that has already been made a Featured article, but has not yet been listed on the Main Page (such as Read my lips: no new taxes).

Requirements[edit]

Raul is willing to consider any article for April fools day, as long as it meets three requirements:

It must be a featured article by April 1, 2007
It must not have already been used as the main page featured article.
It is not too risqué (more so than any other article that would be used on the front page)

Action Items[edit]

What are we going to write/promote? We need to pick either a new topic or an existing article to nominate for FA. I think we need half a dozen nominees - then we vote/get consensus on which one is most suitable.
We have to work hard to get it up to featured status. This may be very difficult and might take several attempts.
We have to usher it through all of the phases leading up to FA.
We need to make sure it's on the front page on April 1st. This means starting in on it fairly soon.

Candidates[edit]

Exploding toad[edit]

I think we can bring exploding toad up to FA status in time for April Fool's. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If brought up to FA status, this definitely would be an AFMP 2007 FA candidate. Spoo was good for AFMP 2006 because all the text on the main page probably left the reader shaking their head. Exploding frog seems to have enough odd factual information so that its main page entry could be written in a way that also leaves the reader wondering whether it is true. -- Jreferee 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It has all the right attributes. We can find references - we can get photos - we can bring it up to the required standard to be an FA. When it's up on the front page, people will read the blurb and go "Oh - right - an April Fool story." then they'll click on it - perhaps expecting a big "APRIL FOOL!" banner or something - and discover it's a perfectly serious article about a real subject. Then they will know that they have truly been April-fooled - but in an encyclopeadic and Wikipedia-ish way that is uniquely ours. I'd like to see more suggestions like this one - but if we don't find anything better, this is good enough for me. SteveBaker 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this is much too far away from FA status. not even close to GA status at present. it aint gonna be done in time. Zzzzz 01:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch[edit]

Other than the name, the topic does not seem enough odd factual information so that its main page entry could be written in a way that also leaves the reader wondering whether it is true. -- Jreferee 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think this is better for DYK.~~ | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I forgot DYK is for new articles. It's fine then; I can help too (I can pronounce it, so I'm a bit biased :). | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If y'all hardworkin' Wikipedians kin git this up to Featured Status, golly, that would be some hilarity. [a twang as the tobacco hits the spittoon]. --Osbus 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The trouble with this one is that while it may be OK for US readers, people in the UK (I'm British - I live in Texas) are very familiar with this place - we've all known about it since we were children - most of us have photos of ourselves standing in front of the famous railway station sign. British people wouldn't find it funny, surprising or unusual in any way whatever. Americans aren't familiar with it and probably would be very surprised. I have no idea about other English speaking countries - but the UK thing would ensure that it will not be considered anything other than a normal day's FA for a large fraction of our readership. Nope - this one won't do. SteveBaker 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm an American and the name is pretty funny when you're unfamiliar with it, but if you say that UK users will be too accustomed to it to find it funny, I'll have to agree that it's not right for the Main Page. Demosthenes 1 19:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, don't be a spoiled sport! I think it's a cool article (no offense at all)--Princess Janay (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia[edit]

I just asked Raul654, and he said that if we can make Uncyclopedia a featured article, he would have no problem making it article of the day! I think we have found a winner! The Placebo Effect 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it. I would just let unencyclopedia know. JoeSmack ^Talk 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Gold! I'll help too! | AndonicO ^{Talk • Sign Here} 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in!! Let me know what help you need! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an uncyclopedia subpage that could be used to bring the page to featured article status. I've added some suggested headings that we could use (Note:They are the same as the wikipedia page!). the oage can be found at - (Talk_Uncyclopedia/featured article) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Talk:Uncyclopedia/featured article, as the previous one was still in the main namespace. -- ReyBrujo 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i'am all for it let me know if i can help Dr prince 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for Uncyclopedia if we can create a mainpage description that meets the unusual or unbelieveable requirements for the project. I don't think Uncyclopedia is unusual like an exploding whale. That means the eight or so sentences addressing Uncyclopedia appearing on the mainpage need to be manipulated in a way as to sound unbelievable and yet be true, just as Spoo was for AFMP 2006. I think we need to come up with a draft for the main page before deciding on the FA article. -- Jreferee 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Uncyclopedia should be chosen, not because of the article being unbelievable and amazing, but because it's being on the main page is unbelievable and amazing. People will think that it's not a well written article, only a joke. Besides, they are our parody; how many times has a creationist newspaper had the Flying Spaghetti Monster on it's front cover? | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I strongly believe that Uncyclopedia would be a disasterous choice. Firstly, I don't think it's possible to write a properly referenced article about this. Remember we have to get this through the incredibly difficult 'Featured Article' and 'Front Page Featured Article' processes. If you've never tried to do this you have no idea how hard it is. (I have one successful FA - and one failed - so I have been through this both ways). Secondly, there are a lot of people here who really, deeply hate Uncyclopedia. Putting that on the front page will ruffle a lot of feathers...plenty of people won't find that funny at all. Those people are going to be fighting our FA all the way. Trust me - this is a terrible choice for April Fool. Also, it's too obvious. We want to make the subtle - you need to read the article and think "Surely this is an April Fools joke."...but in fact, it's not - it's a dead straight story. Exploding toads would be perfect for that. You'd read the blurb on the front page and say to yourself "Those funny guys" - click on the article and be amazed to find that it's all perfectly true. That's the plan here. Uncyclopedia can't do that. SteveBaker 00:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah not really feeling this Uncyclopedia idea...its not that funny. --Osbus 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the 'unbelievable reaction' we want is one where someone reading the front page says, 'I can't believe that a few editors got together and were able to get this content on main page.' Spoo had a different kind of unbelievable aspect to it. In addition to the AFMP unusual or unbelievable content requirement, Steve makes good points regarding AFMP diplomacy policy. I believe that this is only the third time the main page will have an April Fool's theme, so we might want to tread lightly (baby steps per Bob, if you will). -- Jreferee 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

Would it be possible to bring the article about Wikipedia up to FA status? --216.184.34.36 06:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There has been a lot of support for that article over on Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive where it currently has 53 votes and looks like it could easily become the focus of a lot of effort real-soon-now. However, there is a Wikipedia rule: WP:ASR which says that we shouldn't make references to Wikipedia inside Wikipedia. I think it's very wrong to put more emphasis on Wikipedia than we do on (say) YouTube or MySpace. Worse still, I very much doubt that anyone who edits Wikipedia can be said to have a NPOV with respect to Wikipedia - so writing a fair article on the subject would be exceedingly difficult. Both of these problems might make it very tough to get this through WP:FA and thus onto the front page. But what makes you think an article on Wikipedia on the front page would be thought to be unlikely or funny? People are going to assume that we are merely self-centered and perhaps immodest because we writing about ourselves. They aren't likely to say "Eh? This story can't be true...<click>...OMG!...It is true!" SteveBaker 13:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common scold[edit]

How about common scold, which now is at WP:FARC? -- Jreferee 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally - I already suggested it for the DYK effort. You can make a great one-liner from it. Do you think we could keep it looking that odd for the whole FA description? I think it works better as a DYK. SteveBaker 04:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April fools' day[edit]

How about actually getting the april fools' day article up to FA status? It looks like it would need a lot of work, but theres plenty of reliable sources around to get the page sorted, and lets face it, most of the articles that have been suggested so far need a lot of work RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This wouldn't be amusing or surprising to people coming to Wikipedia on April 1st. Sure it's relevent - but we aren't here to make a relevent page - we're here to make something so weird or funny that people don't believe it's true - even though it actually is true. SteveBaker 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a side-effect of the project though. If enough people find new, well-referenced stuff, and the article is improved enough, why not put it forward at FAC? Carcharoth 18:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The K Foundation burn a million quid[edit]

read the intro of this article. then realize its actually TRUE. even better, its inches away from becoming a featured article already (loadsa refs). just post to WP:KLF that this is gonna be the april 1st FA & they'll do it up in no time (they've had loads already).

Support - Wow! What a bunch of idiots! The quotes from them in the years afterwards are just priceless. SteveBaker 00:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The page needs quite a lot of work although there are a lot of reliable references, in my opinion its the best idea so far, would truely look like wikipedia has created an april fools joke! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the best of the lot so far. Carcharoth 01:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tentatively support this -- but the article title needs to conjugate the verb "burn" properly -- either "Watch the K Foundation burn a million quid" or "The K Foundation burned a million quid," or something like that. Actually, I'm not happy with the title even then -- can't we rename this something like "The K Foundation Caper" or something like that? You know, some sort of proper noun? --Drostie 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Yeah, Wow! We probably could use this for three AFMPs and still not run out of unbelievable text. Leaves you shaking your head in disbelief. -- Jreferee 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - but those in the UK may already know of this... ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as one of the main authors. We could get it Featured in time but really we'd need to know like now or this weekend at least. As Lar said, people in the UK will have heard of it, I can't pretend otherwise. Many won't know the detail though and would still get something from it I'm sure: I learnt a lot and was quite amazed when writing it! Other caveat: The KLF were on the front page recently. --kingboyk 12:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Its a good article, well written, and novel enough for non British citizens. Uncyclopedic enough to be featured --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support It needs some work, but this would be a good choice - • The Giant Puffin • 12:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose April Fools day article could be Joke or something that is funny, amusing and with some weird logic. But this incident is illogical and crazy. I doubt, if many would appreciate it for an AFAD. The passing thought would be 'crazy' for that article as many do not know about K Foundation and there is no explanation of why it was done. --Phoe6 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest Prognosticator[edit]

This was suggested for an April Fool DYK entry - but I think it would make a great FA. SteveBaker 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support - I agree that this would be ok for a featured article for april fool's, but I think it might be too complicated for the average user, we want the page to still be accesilbe to every user RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Too complicated?? I don't see that as a problem - even in principle. It's no more complex than many front page FA's - and even a fairly unsophisticated reader would see the blurb on the front page saying "twelve leeches hitting a bell with hammers to predict the arrival of a storm" - assume that it's bogus and then find that no, there is in fact a full article about it and that it's completely true. I don't think you need to read or understand the article to be amazed by it. I don't think our average readers would have any problems - and in any case, we have at least a month to improve and clarify the article to make it more approachable. My main concern is whether we could hit FA with it successfully. SteveBaker 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play, I do support it still, I was just giving my opinion! I just think that maybe the April fool's main page should be a little more light hearted. But as you say, we've plenty of time to make it that way. Don't think it would be a problem passing FA, as long as we can find sources RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If any of our contributors in Whitby would like to visit the museum and gather more details then that would certainly help to improve the article. I'd love a copy of the inventor's essay but haven't found an online version yet (I don't believe one exists). violet/riga (t) 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this is much too far away from FA status. not even close to GA status at present. it aint gonna be done in time. Zzzzz 01:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking Cat[edit]

I think this one is also another good suggestion. It's to the point of, "I can't believe this." Like Exploading Toad. They'd expect it to be an April Fool's kind of thing, seeing the picture of it, but imagine the look on their faces when they find out it's real! D-Caf 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose yeh it would be a funny story, but the articles basically at stub level, it would be too hard to get to FA RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I also think it's a funny story but we'd have enough time to get it up to FA quality. April's far away... Demosthenes 1 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it's a good story - but the only photo is under 'fair use' - which isn't allowed on the front page. I doubt very much we'd find a good free use photo - and without the photo there is no front page FA. SteveBaker 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet-related injury[edit]

I can't believe this has an article. Would be nice to see it on the front page. Carcharoth 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Would be a really good story! its got a few refernces in it (Well 7ish!), maybe we could find adequate numers to meet FA RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I doubt it as most of the article is a list - so would get destroyed in an FAC, and the rest is "possible injuries" ie pure conjecture. so take those 2 sections away and the result is very stubby. Zzzzz 18:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I'm happy with how the article turned out I don't think it would be easy to turn it into a featured article. violet/riga (t) 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will need lots of work, but in the end, its one great story. Canadianshoper 03:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic strip switcheroo[edit]

A more serious nomination here. A funny event that took place on April Fool's Day. Possibly more suitable for "on this day". Carcharoth 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this one for the On this Day section. That's a pretty funny article I had no idea that happened. Demosthenes 1 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to OTD - Yeah it would work great as an OTD - but I don't think it's FA material. SteveBaker 23:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've moved it over there. Carcharoth 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After thinking about it a bit more I realise that this definitely can't be used as the FA. The two pictures in the article are both 'Fair Use' - they won't be allowed onto the front page - so we couldn't possibly raise this up to FA quality. But I still recommend using it in OTD. SteveBaker 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFAIK there's nothing explicitly wrong with having a FA without free images, the only thing is we can't put a picture on the main page so we don't like to feature it. Nil Einne 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston molasses disaster[edit]

Can't believe I forgot this one. It was a former featured article (back in the old days), but was demoted at some point. Could it be worked back up to featured status? Have people already heard about it? In a similar vein, there is the Baldock Beer Disaster, but the molasses one is more developed. Carcharoth 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - think its a bit sick for a joke, 21 people died? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree that it is sort of funny in a sick type of way, but it's for that very reason that I oppose it. This requires a sense of humor some people might not appreciate, an therefore it's not right for the Main Page. Demosthenes 1 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yeah it's sad that people died, but it was long enough ago that almost nobody is left who personally knew the victims. It's got that great "strange but true" quality, and it's pretty close to FA-level. —Dgies^t c 07:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree. It was so long ago. Besides, we aren't trying to make fun of it. We'd put it on the front page because it's hard to believe not because it's funny. The article is a dead straight description of the events. SteveBaker 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article says that the place where the tank of molasses was is "currently the site of a city-owned baseball field" - anyone know that area of Boston, or know of any way to get a picture of what the area looks like now? Carcharoth 23:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is... an amazing article. It already has substantial content, and I'm sure that lots could be added. It's also quite humorous.Hojimachong ^talk _con 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Ok. I agree that it sounds funny at first, but then you realize that several people died in that spill. It's not funny at all.--Princess Janay (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite monkey theorem[edit]

This is already an FA. SteveBaker 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Never mind - it was on the front page in October 31, 2004. SteveBaker 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I saw this on Family Guy and could hardly believe it's an actual theorem. I think it would be hilarious. Demosthenes 1 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's funny - but I doubt the Wikipedia:Today's featured article folks would accept the same article appearing twice - even if the last appearance was two and a half years ago. SteveBaker 20:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Wikipedia[edit]

Just thought I'd moot this as almost the perfect article that could be used for april fools day. However, unfortunately, its in someones userspace and obviously been created as a joke! Definately worth a look though! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This not only violates our guidelines of sticking only to things that are true - but it is also against nearly every Wikipedia policy I can think of! But mostly WP:ASR and the rule that you can't link from main article space to user-space pages. To make featured article, there would have to be references (of which there can be none). This is utterly impossible. SteveBaker 13:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is not an article! Are we planning to take the word fools so seriously.Canadianshoper 05:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It doesn't even seem particularly accurate. 9 servers? I thought this a bit strange a quick Google confirmed Meta:Wikimedia servers#Overall system architecture Nil Einne 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquin_Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel[edit]

This was suggested over on the main page. I think it has a similar (but not so serious) problem as the improbably long railway station name in Wales - that is that British people are already well aware of this. But I think that because it's a fairly silly subject - they might still be surprised that we have an article on it. SteveBaker 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yeah. That British part. {Slash -|-Talk} 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liger[edit]

This may be too obscure, but in the film Napoleon Dynamite, Napoleon is at one point drawing a cartoon that's a half-lion, half-tiger. He calls it a "liger." It turns out that ligers have, in fact, really been bred, so it's a moment of "No. That can't possibly really exist." I'd only support it if we could get the cartoon doodle that Napoleon was doing for its Featured Article image -- but if we can, the rest of the article is pretty well on its way to FA status, and needs rather little work. -- Drostie 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penis fencing[edit]

A stub (no pun intended), but a highly amusing one. With work I think this would make a great unusual article FA. And before anyone complains that it's not suitable for the main page, click the link to get the joke :) Raul654 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Oppose It is very funny, I agree. But this choice may not be suitable for a wide range of audience I believe. Curious folks are bound to land up on Frot, just as I did. :) --Phoe6 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

We still need suggestions for the article on April fool's. Any suggestions? The Placebo Effect 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FARC and Unusual articles are potential sources. Last years Spoo came from WP:FARC.-- Jreferee 16:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition on the grounds of too much work to do?[edit]

I see lots of Oppose comments that center around the amount of work needed to get up to FA status for some of these articles. I don't think the amount of work is seriously a problem - we'll have at least a month to do the work and maybe a half dozen experienced editors. You can write an awful lot in a month! What bothers me most is whether the data exists to expand some of the more obscure articles. To make FA, we need lots of references and a reasonably long article. We probably have the effort to do this - but only if there is enough referenced material to write about. SteveBaker 02:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline for submissions?[edit]

I suppose we ought to put a deadline on submissions so we have time to vote, pick an article and push it through the FA process. I think we should be able to complete the FA process in under a month - but there is always a risk that the article fails in some horrible way and we might have to make a second run at it with a different article. How about we shoot for making a hard-and-fast list of submissions by Feb 1st and finishing up the selection process by Feb 8th? That gives us an entire week to come up with suggestions and another week to debate, vote and reach some kind of a consensus - leaving seven weeks for getting a featured article out the door? That should be plenty of time to go around and do it again if the first effort fails. SteveBaker 00:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest this! Think your time scale is good, how about a vote in the week Feb 2nd, to Feb 8th? we could mention this on the main project page for AFMP 2007 so we get a better response RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - but only for the FA section - I think the other parts can leave it for longer. OTD, ITN and DYK don't need to make final nominations until the last week of March. Featured picture is a major problem though...no ideas...urgh. SteveBaker 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should clarify, what I mean was we should make everyone aware on AFMP project page that there is a vote for the featured article, as I said, it would make more people aware and therefore go for the vote. Any Ideas of a voting process? Similar to Rfa or a bog standard vote? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - I see. Announce when we are voting on the main list - not announce the schedule there. OK - yeah - actually that's a really good idea. I suppose we should really try to do things the Wiki-way and seek a consensus before literally counting votes. Let's just collect ideas for a week - accumulate the usual Support and Oppose comments as we go - then when we close the submissions, we can dump the obvious "consensus" losers and if we don't have an obvious consensus winner we can throw it open to the entire group for a straight line vote. At least that way we'll have tried to get a consensus first and only take it to an actual vote if we can't all more or less agree. Does that seem fair? SteveBaker 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. So lets keep it running as it has been for now. I'm sure that we'll get a clear consensus by the time we're ready to decide anyway RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...[edit]

...that there are thirteen featured articles at Wikipedia:Unusual articles! Carcharoth 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I should've taken a look there. Maybe I can find something that will be good. D-Caf 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Decide[edit]

OK - so as per previous agreement, we are out of time for suggestions and it's time to seek consensus. Here is a summary of the opinions so far:

**Proposed FAs for April Fool**
Title	Proposer	Supporters	Opposers (with reasons)
Exploding toad	Deathphoenix	Jreferee, SteveBaker	Zzzzz (can't get it up to FA in time) Dgies (hard to get enough references)
Llanfair...gogogoch	Jreferee	Osbus	AndonicO (better as a DYK), SteveBaker (not funny to Brits) Demosthenes (not funny to Brits)
Uncyclopedia	The Placebo Effect	JoeSmack, AndonicO, RyanPostlethwaite, Dr prince, AndonicO	SteveBaker (many reasons), Osbus (not funny), Jreferee (various reasons) Dgies (WP:ASR, few good refs)
Wikipedia	216.184.34.36	(none)	SteveBaker (WP:ASR mostly) Dgies (not funny, huge WP:ASR)
Common scold	Jreferee	(none)	SteveBaker (better for DYK)
April fools' day	RyanPostlethwaite	(none)	SteveBaker (not surprising)
The K Foundation burn a million quid	(unsigned)	SteveBaker, RyanPostlethwaite, Carcharoth, Drostie, Jreferee, ++Lar, Dgies	(none)
Tempest Prognosticator	SteveBaker	RyanPostlethwaite	Zzzzz (too far away from FA)
Stalking Cat	D-Caf	Demosthenes	RyanPostlethwaite (too hard to get FA), SteveBaker (fair use image is major problem) Dgies (too promotional)
Toilet-related injury	Carcharoth	RyanPostlethwaite, Canadianshoper, Dgies	Zzzzz (not FA material), violet/riga (not FA material)
Comic strip switcheroo	Carcharoth	Demosthenes	SteveBaker (this has already been on the front page) Dgies (too well-known)
Kingdom of Wikipedia	RyanPostlethwaite	(none)	SteveBaker (violates many WP policies)
Tarquin...Biscuitbarrel	SteveBaker	(none)	Slash-I-Talk (not funny to Brits)

As you can see, we have only one proposal that has no opposition (The K Foundation burn a million quid) - however, I wasn't living in the UK at the time this story broke and my family say it was all over the news and is now no longer either novel or funny - so I might well be inclined to switch my vote to an oppose. Two other articles (Exploding toad and Tempest Prognosticator) have only one 'oppose' on the grounds that we can't raise them to FA in time. However, that's a risk for all of the articles that aren't already close to FA already - and all of those are opposed for other reasons.

On this basis, I think we need to reduce the list to those with no opposes except for the 'can we do it in time' concern in order that we can seek consensus. I propose this shortlist:

**Short list of FAs for April Fool**
Title	Proposer	Supporters	Opposers (with reasons)	My thoughts
Exploding toad	Deathphoenix	Jreferee, SteveBaker	Zzzzz (can't get it up to FA in time)	The only opposition is that we can't do it in time.
The K Foundation burn a million quid	(unsigned)	SteveBaker, RyanPostlethwaite, Carcharoth, Drostie, Jreferee, ++Lar, Dgies	Phoe6(It is not a joke. It is a crazy behavior for those who dont know K Foundation)	Lots of support - but a slight concern that Brits are already very familiar with it.
Tempest Prognosticator	SteveBaker	RyanPostlethwaite	Zzzzz (too far away from FA)	Again, the only complaint is the effort involved.

Zzzzz's complaints that we won't make it to FA in time are well taken - but I'm inclined to discount this reason for an 'oppose' vote. We have almost two months to do it. I've gotten articles through FAC before - and I strongly believe that if we can do it at all, we can do it in a month with half a dozen committed editors doing the work. I suggest that we push hard on one of these with the goal of getting it to WP:FAC by the end of February and if it looks like it'll get shot down in flames, we have another whole month to either do more work on it and try again - or pick a different one and start over.

Now - how do we choose which one? I propose we each rank them in order of preference and see if a clear ordering appears. To that end, I vote:

Tempest Prognosticator, Exploding Toad, K Foundation SteveBaker 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K Foundation, Exploding toad, Tempest Prognosticator RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K Foundation, Exploding toad, Tempest Prognosticator - but why not try all 3? dont see why it has to be only one, and with 3 if one doesnt make it to FA there are automatically 2 backups. Zzzzz 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah - we could do that. Not a bad idea at all. It kinda makes this vote moot (which suits me because nobody likes my ordering!). SteveBaker 03:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K Foundation Closest to FA status, bizarre name, lots of good references, but needs a free image. —Dgies^t c 16:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put it on the supporters of the articles to overcome the "can't be made FA in time" charge... let's have one in the can that IS FA quality, certified as such (maybe bring Raul in on this a bit more tightly) and if we can then get more there, choose later... As for ranking I think: Exploding Toad, Tempest Prognosticator, K Foundation... even though K is closest, because I think everyone in the UK already knows... ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exploding Toad, Tempest Prognosticator, K Foundation - Ozzykhan 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a discussion on the DYK page (Wikipedia:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know#Tempest_Prognosticator) for adding Tempest Prognosticator there on 4/1 - just thought I'd point it out before we make any decisions! - Ozzykhan 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know - but we have plenty of DYK entries - if we want to use it here, DYK won't miss it too badly. Besides, whichever of these we don't end up using will make a great DYK entry. SteveBaker 19:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exploding Toad, Tempest Prognosticator, K Foundation - Whilding87 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K Foundation, Tempest Prognosticator, Exploding toad - i nom'ed k foundation originally and trust me barely anyone in uk (outside techno music historians) knows the story!

Images for K-Foundation[edit]

Hmmm - all three images in the K-Foundation article are 'fair use'. That's going to be a big problem for getting onto the front page. We can't put a fair use picture on the front page and if we don't have a picture of some kind, we won't get on the front page either. SteveBaker 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually you can put a fair use picture on the front page (see the recent featuring of Halloween (film) for example). In fact that article *only* has fair use images. Same with all the Star Wars articles that have appeared. So its not really a problem. 82.2.139.211 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late entry[edit]

Sorry for coming in with a late entry, but I was recently reading Clara the rhinoceros and this struck me as the sort of well-written article that could easily be raised to featured status, and which has the necessary quirkiness level to be a suitable Main Page article on April Fool's Day. Category:Famous animals also has some rather quirky articles. What do people think? Carcharoth 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, i'd vouch for it. Seemed quirky to me anyway! Whilding87 18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clara has been on my long list to be improved and FACd since I created her article last July - gosh, is it really that long ago? The current article is not really up to snuff, though - compare and contrast Dürer's Rhinoceros. Perhaps next year. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another late entry[edit]

It's a self-nomination, but if all the other entries fall over, you may wish to look at Australia at the Winter Olympics. It's only mildly odd, but it's already a FA. Andjam 04:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Toledo War - a "war" with one injury, it's even listed on Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Also Diary of a Camper has not been on the main page. From the article: Stephen Lum of The Cineplex said that the film contained "weird humour". Paul Coates bluntly wrote, "This movie is DULL. It is NOT VERY INTERESTING." Gimmetrow 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for article[edit]

Its clear that consensus isn't going to be reached here so I think its time we went for a bog standard vote as we need to get things moving. Sign your name with; # ~~~ under the article you would like to see on the April fool's main page. The article with the most votes by Thursday 28 February will be the article we go for.

Tempest Prognosticator[edit]

I just proposed this for FAC, let's hope it is accepted. Bensmith53 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding toad[edit]

Ozzykhan
Whilding87
Bensmith53
Jack
YechielMan 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The K Foundation burn a million quid[edit]

I propose that the first article to reach 25 votes, or the one leading by 18 March (two weeks before AFD is the one chosen) Bensmith53 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do this as we need to get it upto featured article status prior to AFD - 2 weeks is just not long enough RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not send them to FAC now to see which will actually pass. I doubt that explodinng toad would pass in it's current state with one referance. THe other two seem more likley to pass. The Placebo Effect 13:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about an article about hoaxes?[edit]

Apollo moon landing hoax accusations is not a featured article, but it is pretty good, all things considered. It could be piped in as Apollo missions were faked with only the pro-fakery side highlighted on the mainpage. This would have the advantage of being both an article about a hoax and a clever hoax parody of an actual belief. Alternatively, Flat Earth Society could be piped in as Flat Earth. --71.57.90.96 14:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article we're going for[edit]

After discusing the situation with Raul about possible articles to use, It is clear that we simple haven't got enough time to get these articles that we've mentioned upto featured status, so I am snowballing the vote and saying we're going for Human penis size, its very close to featured status already so wouldn't need loads of work doing to it and its readers will think wikipedia are taking the mick! Any objections? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have preferred Red rain in Kerala or Pig War from the list Raul gave. I don't see anything particularly quirky about Human penis size, other than that it's about penises. I don't object incredibly strongly, but it wouldn't have been my choice. Good luck defending it on Talk:Main Page, though! --Cherry blossom tree 13:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be up for going with Red rain in Kerala, it seams a fairly established article. I actually made a start on getting human penis up to FA. If we go for Red rain, would you be up for helping out? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use Red rain in Kerala, then it might be advisable to get help from Wikiproject India, which (given their past FA contributions) I suspect would be willing to help get this up to FA status. Raul654 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is actively working on any of the listed articles. Although Red rain in Kerala is quite close to A class status, the last edit to it occurred on 14:58, 2 March 2007, and I doubt it will reach FA status in time. RyanPostlethwaite, Nichalp provided some interesting feedback to your peer review request which might help you improve it. I'd love to collabrate if you're interested. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer Red rain to the penis article. It seems more unbelievable, and it's less repulsive (WP:NOT, I know, I know...) · AO ^Talk 16:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can get the K Foundation featured before April 1st, trust me. It's about 90% done already; all it needs is for myself and Vinoir to work hard on completing it (consider that done), and a few of you folks helping out with copyediting and expediting the FAC process. The fair use image is fine and can go on the front page as obviously nobody was around to snap a GFDL picture of them throwing money onto the fire :) --kingboyk 12:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement with kingboyk's assessment. If people still want that article for the front page, it can be done. --Vinoir 18:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we had a front page recently, I'd be more comfortable batting for next year's front page. However, it's your call. We'll try and get the article to FA regardless. Drop us a line at WT:KLF if there's any interest; if not, thanks at least for considering the article and for the nice comments :) --kingboyk 13:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing, British Rail flying saucer is a crazy but true article. That would make a wonderful April 1st article I think, but whether it could be beefed up to FA I don't know. --kingboyk 13:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that article is that it's way too short. It would certainly be possible to add more info from the patent - except that the link to the patent doesn't work. I've tried searching for it at the European patent office site - by name, by the numbers in our (defunct) link and by searching for ANY British Rail patent from around that time - and I don't see it anywhere. Unless we can turn up the patent, this one is doomed. We'd also need a non-fair-use picture for the front page and we're not going to get one because there aren't any. SteveBaker 00:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction there seems to have been some kind of a glitch at the patent office - the link is working again now. There is a lot more that could be said about this from reading the patent. But it's still a very thin story from the point of view of reaching FA status - and we still lack a non-fair-use picture. SteveBaker 00:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very late entry[edit]

I've just created George Washington (inventor) over a very short period. Truth be told, it may still need some polish. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Washington (inventor). Thanks.--Pharos 16:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured status?[edit]

Are any of the proposed articles featured yet? If not, which (apart from the one above) are at WP:FAC? Carcharoth 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]