Swept in from the pub

I'm guessing not, given that it's March 8th and we haven't even come up with a list of possible topics yet, but in case I'm wrong and there have been discussions going on somewhere that I wasn't aware of, could someone please point me to them so I can know what to make DotM banners for? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely but if we want to, we can 1.) Republish something from before, 2.) Repurpose something we started but never finished, 3.) Cobble something together (possibly something that's pretty easy), or 4.) Do a power move on May 1 instead. Preferences? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like Koavf's suggestion #1. We have April Fools Day articles dating back to 2006. We could start cycling through them again for the amusement of a new generation of readers, rather than diverting energy from building real travel articles. Ground Zero (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think reusing old ones is a fine idea. If we do want to make a new one, I had the idea of Pangea the other day. But we could also save that for another year. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage_talk:Joke_articles#Time_to_start_thinking_about_this_year's_article?. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a revision to Time Travel, motivated by certain events in the news (it needs editing). I had considered making a proposal to suspend April 1st stuff this year, because of the serious issue of the novel coronavirus, which needs people to have accurate and "real" information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to push the envelope, then further updates to the relevant sections of that article based on actual history would be the way to go...

( I seem to recall Venice, for example, imposed "visa restrictions" on visitors at certain periods due to regional pandemic concerns for example..).

I.E Go for things based on actual history, rather than jokes as such..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Light relief: If the Onion quotes advice for time travellers to quarantine... https://www.theonion.com/who-warns-outbreaks-in-victorian-england-confirm-corona-1842123259, maybe the time travel article should reflect the advice as well...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is something that by definition would have virtually no content as a kind of non-comedy joke. E.g. Nirvana or A Journey to the Center of Your Mind where there is just a picture of a clam blue ocean or something. We can cobble that together quickly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. I have to say though that especially given the ongoing cornavirus pandemic, an April fool's article comes in really low on our list of priorities, so I would advise against spending too much time on this. The dog2 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not for April Fools Day, but why don't we have an article on Self-isolation for 14 days? I'm going to need that article when I get home next week. Ground Zero (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you don't get sick. That seems like a non-travel article, but it should be somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether that is a travel article, as I mentioned above. Let's discuss that on the new article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Aside) Given a lot of major countries are in effect saying Don't travel.. At what point does Wikivoyage effectively cease to be a travel guide for the duration? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short of blacking out the website, we can't stop being a travel guide. There will almost certainly be other changes to how we run or what content we feature going forward as the situation develops. Personally, I'm hoping that if a lot of Wikivoyagers are in isolation but otherwise healthy, we will see more edits over the next month or so.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The warning on the main page is excellent, but if you come to a destination/travel topic webpage via search, that warning isn't helpful. Could we include some sort of standard travel warning at the top of all pages until the virus ceases to spread at its current rate? Also, as a note, although someone may have mentioned this already, an April Fools' Joke seems in rather bad taste at the moment given the coronavirus and its impacts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree it's bad taste. We're still allowed to laugh, aren't we? But I would agree with other comments that there are more important things to focus our attention on this year, so I wouldn't be opposed to either reusing an old April Fools or doing something really simple like Nirvana.

In the coronavirus section, a site notice (banner at the top of each page) was mentioned; we should pursue that, IMO.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think an April Fools article can actually be of great value these days to cheer up readers that are confined to their homes, or somewhere else due to them being sick with corona, possibly infected, or their schools or workplaces closed or general lockdowns. As can our travel guides - surely many love to read about places and plan future travels especially if they have extra spare time now? --Ypsilon (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more vote against doing any April Fool's joke article this year, short and simple or no. Yes, we need laughter and levity in these times, but context matters. If the optics of carrying on with DotM, which is a normal feature of our Main Page, are questionable (though I'm satisfied with the arguments in favor of doing so), then the optics of interrupting our regularly scheduled programming not with vital or breaking information about the crisis but with something frivolous would be almost unquestionably bad. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose April Fools article as I stated previouslyShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If enough editors are familiar with the topic we could run an April Fool on "Travelling without leaving home". I would see this covering video conferences, exploring a city using streetview etc. This is a topic which would be of practical use in the present situation, and could be given a funny introduction and title for April 1, which might be changed later. AlasdairW (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, it sounds like a great idea! Such an article would blur the boundaries of being a joke article and being useful advice. We could push it for April Fool's by including some over-the-top suggestions like "visit Imaginationland by sitting in a cardboard box and pretending it's an airplane" or "hold a seashell up to your ear while applying a spray bottle of salt water to your face", and then tone it down afterwards to make it a bit more serious and useful.

We also don't have an article for Staycation (and I'll note that the Other Wiki does have one!). The word "staycation" is used on exactly two pages. Even though interest has died down compared to when the idea was new, it's still very much a thing people know about and consider doing. That's tangentially related to the same idea of "Travelling without leaving home", although I assume you meant that one to be more literal, as in not leaving your own house. --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travel for shut-ins? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea a lot. Let's do it! The fact that it could essentially morph into practical advice is great. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my stance: support the creation of a Staycation (or similar title) article, support promoting said article as an alternative to travel during the coronavirus pandemic (possibly as April's FTT, if we can get it up to Guide status in time?), oppose using it as our April Fool's joke article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real change in attitude. Until now, we never approved non-travel articles like one about isolation or one about staycations. Maybe we should have such articles, but it's interesting that it took a pandemic to change views about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek - I would push hard for the article to be entitled Staycation. I think the argument that staycations are within our scope comes from the facts that 1) as Bigpeteb said, the concept has been around for a lot longer than the coronavirus epidemic, and 2) staycations are intended to incorporate as many of the tropes of actual travel as possible except for the change in physical location, which is also the reason why an article on social distancing or quarantine or whatever would not fall within our scope. As for Travel for shut-ins or Travelling without leaving home, that sounds to me more like we're inventing a concept just for the sake of writing a Wikivoyage article about it. Those might work as April Fool's Day joke articles, but as I said before, I would oppose running one of those this year. If we're going to do something like this, we need to regard it not as a joke but a serious opportunity to provide valuable information to our readers, both now and after the pandemic has subsided. Given the current zeitgeist, it's just too likely that an April Fool's feature would strike the wrong tone. At best, no one's in the mood for dumb jokes at the moment; at worst, as I said above, it comes off as imprudent and out of touch and makes Wikivoyage look bad. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a "Staycation" article would fit within our scope. That said, I don't think now is necessarily the right time to write a "Staycation" article—staycations typically involve doing travel-y activities in the local area, which is not recommended in places with serious outbreaks of COVID-19.

I think a humorously written article about staying at home could work for April Fool's this year. Raising people's spirits with lighthearted entertainment is important in times of crisis. It might depend on how the article is written.

I think self-isolation is within our scope in theory (like Returning home is), though I question our capacity to write a medically accurate article about that topic. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, English Wikipedia also has an April Fool's Day tradition of using joke articles for Today's Featured Article and some of the other elements of their Main Page. I suppose following their lead, in terms of whether or not they plan to suspend that tradition this year, might be a way to gauge what's a good way forward. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they stopped doing it for Today's Featured Article a few years ago but still do it for "Did you know". But I'm not certain. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really been too gung-ho on April Fools articles, though the one about East Berlin was kind of fun. But this year, it would be in poor taste to have one, so I oppose it. And AndreCarrotflower, if you don't approve of the Self-isolation after travel article, are you going to nominate it for deletion? I think it's by definition a non-travel article, but it shouldn't be deleted, and if we decide not to keep it here, it should be moved somewhere, not deleted. Personally, now that it's been started and is somewhat well-developed, I would support leaving it up for at least the duration of this crisis, whereupon we could revisit it. I don't think it's at all strange that the highly unusual experience of a pandemic is at least temporarily altering our views on what's topical. And the justification in that case is, what does a traveler do when they must not travel? OK, it's a stretch, but everything feels very provisional and uncertain right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The red link is blue. Let's talk about staycations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really think it's in poor taste to have an April Fool's Article. Light humor is important and very human in stressful and troubling times. Just because every utterance isn't about death, doesn't mean someone is unconcerned or callous. I agree that staycation is too legitimate to be a joke article, though. An article that is literally about exploring Your House (kitchen (Eat/Drink), living room (See/Do), bedroom (sleep), etc) would be easy enough to create. I also think it's light and inoffensive. It's not like we need to mention the coronavirus in the article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The UK government during World War II at one point tried to persuade people to "Holiday at Home!" so... 88.97.96.89 11:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support ChubbyWimbus's idea of "Your house" as an April Fool's article. I agree that humor is important in troubling times, and I don't think this is in poor taste – it's not a joke at the expense of the victims of the virus; rather, it's playfully acknowledging and supporting the steps that people are taking to reduce the virus's spread. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I understand why some people think it's in poor taste to do any kind of joke article during this current pandemic, but as someone who's feeling increasingly isolated and shut-in by new quarantine rules every few days in my city, some travel-themed humor would be very welcome right now. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I like ChubbyWimbus's idea. Given the current situation, I'm fine with some light-hearted humour that also helps to cope with the relative isolation. The dog2 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Your house" - it is clearly an April Fool. We can consider "Staycation" as a separate matter, but I see this more as having a vacation when local travel is possible, including making day trips to nearby cities, so now may not be a good time to start this. AlasdairW (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nolo contendere. My personal opinion regarding the April Fools' article remains the same as before, but I recognize that I'm outvoted, and IMO the current proposal is among the less pitfall-laden of the possible paths, so I won't stand in anyone's way here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's information: Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/MY HOUSE. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, here's a start: Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Your house. Have at it! —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page banner[edit]

Just so you know, I've got about a million things going on in my offwiki life at the moment and I'm unfortunately going to have to pass off the responsibility of making a banner for this year's April Fool's article to someone else. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It just needs a blurb on the right side. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that you had done this, so there is an alternative: File:Your House banner The Lighthouse on Queens Wharf Auckland.JPG, but the first one is fine. AlasdairW (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well...good job! However, nothing personal, but the banner you've uploaded is only 1,700 pixels wide, while Wikivoyage:Banners recommends a banner size of at least 2,100 pixels wide. But if you have any other suggestions, that would be great! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SelfieCity, the 2100px minimum applies to pagebanners, not DotM banners, which do indeed have a 1700px minimum (I usually upload them at a resolution of 1710x570, just so the 3:1 aspect ratio is as precise as possible.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then I guess it's just a matter of which one we prefer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If no one states a banner preference by the time to change banners tonight, I'm fine with us posting AlasdairW's banner to prevent any last-minute disputes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with File:My House FTT Banner.jpg. The other one (File:Your House banner The Lighthouse on Queens Wharf Auckland.JPG) is a little blurry on my screen. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that works with me (of course, I made it). Do we have a blurb yet, though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm fine with either of them. SC's banner is sharper and depicts actual houses where people live. On the other hand Alasdair's banner depicts a house... but if you read the description it's not a real house but an art installation which is sort of hilarious (not a bad thing for an April Fools article). --Ypsilon (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like either of them, frankly. How about this one? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That too is a nice banner. Suggestion for the blurb: "Imagine a travel destination that's really yours. Who knows, you may already be there".Ypsilon (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andre's banner is good, and I like the blurb. I was trying to use a public building so that nobody could complain that their own house was being shown. Unfortunately the photo is a little of of focus, although the ones I took before and after are better, but don't show the house in the right setting. The house is an art installation, sitting on the end of a pier, and you can't open the door but can look at neon artwork through the windows. It is also out of place having a very suburban 1950s house right in the city centre next the downtown ferry terminal. AlasdairW (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really impressive how quickly this is growing with the efforts of many; it was obviously a good idea for a topic. But I am confused by the dual role this seems to be taking on. Roughly half of the edits look like they're trying to write a useful guide for coping with staying at home for an extended period, with practical advice and the same tone as a normal article. The other half of the edits are those you'd expect from an April Fools article: silliness and humour. Unless I've misunderstood what we agreed to do in the pub, the serious edits should really be directed at Staycation or Self-isolation after travel, because (a) they're actually useful and can help people if put in the right place (b) water down the joke of this article. What say ye? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, what seems "serious" for use in other articles, seems funny in this context. Depends on what definition of humour used. I find it hilarious to poke fun at the obvious. 94.191.133.177 20:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a certain amount of advice from Captain Obvious can be funny in this article, but it probably shouldn't be the majority. Any genuine advice for lockdowns, self-quarantines, or staycations should go in the articles ThunderingTyphoons! mentioned or the COVID-19 article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative humor can be difficult, but reading what is there, it doesn't read as too serious to me. Could you point to a section or part that you find out-of-place? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be humorous in the "See" section to have a picture of one of our own articles, since we're talking about visiting world locations via websites. Do we have a nice screenshot of one of our own articles or our homepage? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be funny too. Maybe there's a good screenshot here: commons:Category:English Wikivoyage screenshots. If not we can make a new one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite nice get a screenshot of this article and put it in a photo on this article, then you could have one of those photos inside photos inside photos.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a screenshot of this article, though it's so far down on the page there's only one level of recursion. If you want to move it up, let me know and I can take more screenshots to get multiple levels. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, that's nice! An alternative is to take a photo of the See section, so the position of the ultimate image in the article doesn't have to change.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we delete that redirect from mainspace now? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]