Talk:Ima Hogg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 1 April 2008 (→‎To be dealt with: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleIma Hogg is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 30, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
But she was real. LOL. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funnier blurb is at User:Raul654/test. Updated. Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, she's real?146.115.228.187 (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
April Fools Day, yay! I love these articles. --Sharkface217 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cute article. Takes a while to realise it is an April Fools joke ;-) HagenUK (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? --!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notjake13 (talk • contribs) 01:15, April 1, 2008 UTC (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ah, fudge it; why not? Steve T • C 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Chuckles

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

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

You know

Worst.Joke.Ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.39.238 (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says the vandal. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ima Hogg

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

To be dealt with

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)[reply]

ummm.... haha I think. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
As has been noted elsewhere, everything appearing in the blurb is true. Raul654 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with Craston Lamont. 76.123.165.120 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're still nit-picky, but sometimes we get to be almost funny too ;) Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That misplaced apostrophe in the section heading below this one isn't funny :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well played. Well played. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian's

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

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)[reply]

I assume this is a joke. ;) jengod (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ima_Hogg&oldid=202608366"