Talk:List of April Fools' Day jokes

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

List inclusion criteria[edit]

What about annual jokes that are repeated. RFCs has its own page! Does the American NPR radio station? MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, is there no talkpage discussion at all here? Anyway, I think we really need to have a conversation about the scope of the list. Please contribute your views on what you think it should be! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the article should only list jokes with their own Wikipedia page. Not jokes that can be reliably sourced, not jokes where the entity playing the joke has their own page - but jokes that are themselves notable enough for pages. There will always be cute human-interest stories that don't demonstrate enduring notability in spite of being reliably sourced - limiting the list to things that are notable enough for articles will help ensure that the list doesn't descend into trivia. (And if you feel that a joke on the list is notable, but it doesn't have an article and would thus be in danger of being removed - make an article!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give two examples of memorable jokes that do not have their own page: one was by the English disc jockey Graham Dene in 1986 when Londoners woke up to his breakfast show having started an hour earlier than usual but the time announcements being an hour later. That got me panicking for about 10 minutes.[1] The other was Blue Peter's dehydrated water tablet that would rehydrate if exposed to sunlight. This was sometime in the late '70s I think. They showed a picture of a crashed vehicle that spilled a load of the stuff surrounded by water. Ha. Nasnema  Chat  07:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they have lasting notability (ie. beyond the initial event), you could create articles on them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Hi, This page has been an excellent source of information, carrying well known examples of famous & notable april fools jokes from around the world, showing how the day is spent.

The page had been referenced and quoted on numerous other pages around the web. I fail to understand why someone has to come and murder the page, as it was well writtten. The trouble with Wiki is that there are too many "experts". Please, the existing page is boring, you cannot use just one example per heading, lets revert back to how it was and concentrate on expanding wiki as it should be, not huddling to see what can be changed...as if it continues, how can the info on wiki be trusted as there is no information stability.

Comments welcome, in the mean time I will revert the page back to how it used to be so that the world can use it as a reference.

Cheers everyone. GT.

"Boring" is not a reason to add non-notable information because Wikipedia's purpose is not to entertain. If the jokes are "famous & notable," perhaps you can try creating an article on the individual jokes that demonstrates their lasting relevance. Then they can be added to the article. One day of coverage simply will not do, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In broadcasting we rely on such information sources such as Wiki amongst others as a research / ref tool. For the past FEW years, this page & others has been a god send as a reference. You mention "notable", all of the TV, Radio, Google etc entries WERE and ARE notable events, widely reported on in both the press, TV and Radio, moments in time that people remember & can relate too.

Wiki should be adding one or two notable events each year that make the grade. As I previously mentioned, the page had been in a great format, now it's been over edited, to such extent it is not worth even being part of Wiki, as it provides no meat on the bone, that an Encyclopedia should. 

I find some peoples attitude on Wiki on bordering arrogant, not quite understanding what an Encyclopedia is all about - opening a page and reading about a subject with notable examples to gain a firm understaning of a subject.

If editing pages on Wiki is your passion, then please please create information / data stability. Once a page is written, leave it alone or add to it, NEVER take away, especially when such pages are widely read.

Once again, I will UNDO the recent change, to include the meat & detail of the notable events. Please can you assist with replacing the other sections.

Many thanks, G.

Yeah, no, that's simply not how Wikipedia works. The claim that information added to Wikipedia must never be removed is nonsense. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done guys. Now we have a crap, stubby article that no one will ever go to. I request that the criteria for an joke to be expanded. This article needs some content. 120.29.247.18 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 203.52.130.105[reply]

Hi Roscelese, yeap a crap article, it was a great well written reference article, now it has been destroyed, it was not broken, so why change? I had a chat with our network news editor about what has happened to gauge feelings. His reaction was that since the change, it has no use what so ever. He also noted, that you still include one example, so by doing this, you should also inclulde a balanced view of examples as it used to have, notable, widely reported april fools events. We need to make a change to this, as in it's present state it is dreadful, and to be honest, not a lot of use. Roscelese, can we make the change for the better? Thanks, I crave your response. G.
All, agree this article is bloody boring and now says nothing - & there was nothing wrong with the original page prior to the edits and removal of all "notable" events.

New for 2012[edit]

Hi, can we agree to add one noteable April Fools (for TV, Radio, etc etc) from this years years bunch?. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.44.30 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Roblox 2012 hacking? (Samsung yepp nugget (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Please do NOT remove valuable notable important information from this article.`[edit]

Guys,

This has to stop. Please do NOT remove important notable information from this article. This page is called a list of April Fools jokes..a list normally consists of MORE THAN ONE EXAMPLE of notable events. DO NOT UN DO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.44.30 (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily for you, no one's leaving it at only one example. There are plenty of examples that remain because they are notable, as evidenced by the fact that they can support articles. Your personal feelings about how funny other examples are do not affect us. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria RFC[edit]

What should be the criteria for a joke's inclusion on this page? Reasons for including something that have been suggested include (1) there is an article on it, indicating that it is notable, (2), it has a source, or (3) it is funny. 18:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the article should only list jokes with their own Wikipedia page. Not jokes that can be reliably sourced, not jokes where the entity playing the joke has their own page - but jokes that are themselves notable enough for pages. There will always be cute human-interest stories that don't demonstrate enduring notability in spite of being reliably sourced - limiting the list to things that are notable enough for articles will help ensure that the list doesn't descend into trivia, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (And if you feel that a joke on the list is notable, but it doesn't have an article and would thus be in danger of being removed - make an article!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think requiring a separate article is a bit excessive. I would suggest something like requiring 3 secondary reliable sources which have covered the April Fool's joke. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Asking for a separate article is my way of asking that it shouldn't fail WP:EVENT - it's possible that different media sources might cover a joke the day it happened, but that still doesn't show enduring notability. I think that the list should hold content of enduring notability - to put it another way, content that wouldn't belong in the encyclopedia on its own, in this instance, shouldn't be protected by the list format. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have red linked the items without articles. This does not mean they must be removed but it puts a bit of pressure on to put up or shut up. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is the key, and I think the bar should be set pretty high. Otherwise this article is setting out to accomplish the impossible task of maintaining thousands. There are hundreds of April Fools published by various media sources every year, and many of these would be regarded as reliable sources. The April Fools joke should have reliably sourced coverage beyond that of the primary source, i.e. no jokes only reported by those who invented it. Jokes with a Wikipedia article may be a good starting point in determining this, but I doubt it can be the sole criteria. The criteria of "it's funny" is obviously a non-starter, as that's entirely POV. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Notability as per Escape_Orbit should be the criterion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entries should require their own Wikipedia article. This implicitly requires that the entry be notable. If any editor thinks a specific joke is notable but doesn't have an article, then that editor is free to create such an article. I also think that the article title should be changed to "List of notable April Fool's Day jokes", to clearly reflect the criteria. If we leave the title as "list of ... jokes" someone could quite reasonably put {{Expand list}} or {{Dynamic list}} at the top, which would be an open invitation to add even more non-notable entries. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we're going to pointedly call it "notable .. jokes", then there are a few thousand other list articles that could be similarly renamed. By default, all lists should only ever contain notable entries. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an edit notice could solve the issue without changing the title. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I concur that the article standard is a fair one. Speaking from a public perspective, I would expect for jokes notable to be included in such a list be wikilinked for further explanation.MichaelProcton (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Escape Orbit, not all lists should necessarily contain only notable entries. Some lists can and should be complete, even if some of the entries are not notable. Typically this would be the case where there is a finite and "relatively small" (as ill-defined as that may be) number of entries. (Third bullet point of WP:LSC's Common selection criteria.) One example is List of rivers of Tasmania, which should include even the non-notable (no article) rivers. The difference between the list of rivers and jokes is that the former is (in general) fixed and definitive, whereas the latter is ever-expanding. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to my previous posts... WP:LSC gives clear guidelines on list selection criteria. I think the first bullet point of Common selection criteria is the only one that applies here: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article.... Mitch Ames (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that that is how I would interpret current WP policy on the subject. Note, however, that it is not a requirement that items should have their own WP article, just that that they should be notable enough to do so. Could that be accepted as a consensus here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable enough to have its own article, even if the article doesn't exist" is a valid (and existing) guideline, but will lend itself to abuse (remembers WP:AGF ... ) over-enthusiastic inclusion of entries whose articles, if they were created, might be deleted for lack of notability. It might be wiser to recommend that an editor who adds an entry to the list of jokes also create the article if it doesn't already exist. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just stick to the guidelines as written. Non-notable entries can just be removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that "notable" is partly subjective is exactly why we're trying to set more objective guidelines for inclusion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I am proposing exactly the same guidelines as for creation of an article. We already have a WP policy WP:LSC, which say that the criteria for inclusion in a list such as this should be the same criteria for having a WP article. I see no reason not to to follow existing policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinked items[edit]

To move things on a bit I have red linked all items without an article. This means that anyone who thinks the item deserves inclusion can write an article on it. If, after a time, no article has been written then anyone who feels the item is not worthy of inclusion can remove it.

STOP VANDALISING THIS PAGE.[edit]

ALl items on this page WERE well known reported April Fools jokes from around the world. They were discussed in the written press, Radio, TV. I have & my colleagues reported on these over the years, they ARE all notable, an event in history. Please please leave it alone. This page DOES NOT NEED editing anymore.

There are lots of pages on Wiki that need attention, please turn your attention & energy to looking after these, and NOT changing / editing information that should be captured.

Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.41.166 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

86.27.41.166,WP policy and the consensus here is that items should be notable enough to have their own articles. If you want to prove that point concerning an item then you can create an article on that item. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

86.27.41.166, twice now [2][3] you have undone an edit with a comment stating or implying that you are restoring information that has been removed from the page, but in both cases the edit that you undid has not removed any information, merely changed the formatting. Please slow down, check what has actually changed (use the History page to compare edits) before your revert an edit, and check your own changes (eg with the "Show changes" button) before saving your changes. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Why delete all of those jokes?[edit]

This is a shame. I used to love going on this page and reading the April Fools jokes made and laughing at them.

The reason for deleting all that information was...? No reason, just for the simple fact that you can get a thrill out of moderating a page people found genuinely interesting.

If this is what Wikipedia has become, wow. There was absolutely no need to erase everything. The strawman about Wikipedia being a news source is inaccurate; this was supposed to be a catalog for April Fool's to see the funny jokes people made. No other place but Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has such information, that's what made it a good article.

Notability doesn't matter when no one is going to pay attention to the notable jokes. Instead it's devoid of any character that was deleted for no reason other than to be insanely strict for the hell of it. If the article was left unprovoked, what would it have done? Hurt people? Get the readers to say "This stuff isn't notable at all, I must now read something else because of it."

And you'd think a encyclopedia all about citations wouldn't delete plenty of information that was cited? On April Fool's day? Incredible. Simply incredible. Now it's merely a stub of the article it once used to be, so you know what? I think this article should be deleted. There's absolutely no point in keeping it around when even the starting paragraph "including big corporations" (not even a single corporation is listed) disagrees with the list. SirPainsalot (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just imagine how vast and unreadable this article would now be if it listed every single corporate/website April Fool's joke in history. http://aprilfoolsdayontheweb.com (which lists hundreds every year) is a better place to catalogue this kind of thing exhaustively - they can sort it by upvoting, include some kind of navigation system and include screenshots. Wikipedia just cuts it to the bare bones of "which jokes were a big enough deal to get some press coverage, over the past fifty years". Both of these things are useful in different ways, and the internet has room for both. --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Swim[edit]

Are any of the Adult Swim jokes sourceable to reliable secondary sources? If there were one or two particularly famous ones, then those are the ones we should mention - it's WP:UNDUE to list all eleven of them in full, in an article that can't even muster a single sourced April Fool's joke from the entire history of American television. --McGeddon (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotelicopter[edit]

I've added this hoax here after cutting it from another article I was editing, the List of helicopter airlines. It's better suited here, has its own article, and made the Top Ten lists of a couple of notable newspapers. Meticulo (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of April Fools' Day jokes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of April Fools' Day jokes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot Cake[edit]

Carrot cake is a joke. who puts vegetables in a cake? It's funny; good humor. I have it every April 1st, and serve it to others. I'd like to include it here. Liberty5651 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think a joke doesn't mean other people will. I myself actually like carrot cake. And putting vegetables in dessert is a very normal thing (ever heard of zucchini bread?). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Porn hub?[edit]

Really need to reference this? Hardly a mainstream news/entertainment site. 86.138.47.250 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vandalism into useful new content[edit]

I was originally going to erase all of the text added by the IP user, but instead I have removed only the parts that referenced "virtue signalling" and people not being allowed to have fun. I don't know if the discussion of April Fools being "cancelled" this year actually belongs on this page but it's late and I'm too new to editing Wikipedia to be confident making that call. Shanepelletier (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 3[edit]

Should the 1977 "Alternative 3" television hoax be listed here? Due to industrial action it didn't actually air on April 1, but it was supposed to, and the end credits still have that date. It's possibly unique in being an April Fool spoof TV show that ended up being taken more seriously than it should have been because unforeseen circumstances meant it wasn't transmitted as intended on the one day of the year when people might have expected a British TV station to deliberately tell them outrageous lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.90.228 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha haha[edit]

Haha haha 2402:8100:232F:82CA:5416:FC40:CE00:2D4C (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page really necessary....[edit]

Despite being wikipedia not exactly the best source of usefull and accurate information This still feels a bit............... 2A10:8001:1B33:0:4189:1A3A:729B:1E50 (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April fools[edit]

April fools is where you make practical pranks on ppl for fun 2601:586:CA01:4180:14FC:5878:CE4C:3B2 (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_April_Fools%27_Day_jokes&oldid=1203620968"