Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' 2

For the 2013 RfC about April Fools', see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'. For the 2020 RfC, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' 3.

This RfC aims to discuss April Fools' Day jokes on Wikipedia and offer proposals regarding such jokes. Mz7 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Background

April Fools' Day is a tradition in some Western cultures that involves playing jokes and pranks on others every first day of April. The community has tolerated April Fools' Day jokes on Wikipedia to a degree. However, the extent of this tolerance has been the subject of much debate, including a request for comment in 2013 which established a consensus for keeping April Fools' Day jokes out of the mainspace and for tagging all jokes with {{Humor}} or similar template. These consensuses are detailed in the information page Wikipedia:Rules for Fools.

In 2016, a dispute involving, among other things, an April Fools' Day joke reached the Arbitration Committee, which passed a principle affirming that April Fool's Day jokes are not exempt from the biographies of living persons policy and a remedy that encouraged the community to hold an RfC regarding whether the leniency for April Fools Day jokes should be continued and if so, what should be allowed. A subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) was then held to determine the direction such an RfC should travel.

Format

Start new proposals by creating new sections; each section should be treated as a separate proposal to be discussed and closed independent of the others, similar to how the 2013 RfC operated. There is a section at the end for general discussion about the topic, rather than on a specific proposal. Discussion about the RfC itself should take place on the talk page.

Proposals

New section at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (by Dennis Brown)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A slightly more concise version of my previous proposal, empowering the community while not trying to create a list of dos and don'ts. A new section will be created at the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline, which states:

While the community is tolerant of harmless April Fools jokes, the day is not a defense for violating any policy or guideline. This includes creating improperly labeled hoaxes and/or humor pages, edit warring and making edits that potentially breach WP:BLP, or any type of disruptive editing in general. Actions which negatively affect others will be handled no differently than disruption on any other day of the year.

Support

1. Support although there might be some cause for some tweaking of the language. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Hits the nail on the head. It's a shame that it's necessary (like most of our policies) but recent events have shown that it definitely is. WaggersTALK 08:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Supporting Mz7's wording instead, still support the principle -NottNott|talk 15:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Support Better to make something crystal clear and written down. Nothing to lose by adding this, but to be clear this shouldn't take up a level 2 template, rather a level 3 somewhere in the article. -NottNott|talk 15:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Support generally, but prefer Mz7's version below, and extend it to some additional namespaces (details below). Basically, I support the gist of the original proposal without prejudice against some refinement proposals below, and we should just merge them. We clearly need something along these lines, or this huge page would not exist, and the matter would not have rises to ARBCOM level.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — Not necessary, this whole thing is just blowing a teeny tiny problem out of proportion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Over-reaction is far worse than a harmless joke, and such an over-broad proposal is just asking for admin powers to be abused. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose This seems like legislating in search of a problem. Nomader (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose I actually added the "and any disruptive editing in general" part, but now I realize that it could be taken too far. I agree with Carl Fredrik and Adam Cuerden, totally blown out of proportion. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose this is self-contradictory - it is perfectly possible for an April Fools' joke to be both harmless and violate one or more policies and guidelines. Such jokes are generally fine. Hut 8.5 21:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose, Jokes are the best on Wikipedia, but not needed. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Mz7's one which is IMHO better worded (Sorry I don't mean that in a shitty way), –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose. What is harmless but violates a policy or guideline? A joke that insinuates that another editor a stupid idiot, even though that wasn't really intended. (OK, terrible example. But it is possible for harmless, policy-violating jokes to exist.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• That is a bit better. I would like to see a provision stating that hoaxes within article space are pretty much unacceptable, though. Perhaps, "While the community is tolerant of harmless April Fools jokes outside of article space, ... Montanabw^(talk) 02:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Two things made me not include that, 1) Some do make hoaxes that are tagged as such in article space and they can be handled without sanctions by moving them, and 2) the likelihood of gaining consensus. I think we start small and work from there, letting the community shape it over time. I agree with you, but my goal is to get something to pass that will handle almost all problems and give us something to modify over time if needed. This first step is the hardest, so we have to set the bar at a realistic level. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: I would just start the RfC, and see what proposals are introduced. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I will shortly. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Actions which negatively affect others" might be clarified a bit. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

How about "actions which would in the normal course of interactions on WP be construed as Wikipedia:Personal attacks or which make Wikipedia a hostile environment for other users will be handled no differently than on any other day of the year.." Irondome (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That goes without saying, but this says it: anything that negatively affects someone will be treated like it is April 2. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Question Isn't the publication of anything on Wikipedia that is knowingly false, a violation of policy or guidelines? DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not if it is labelled as humor or in some other way. There are many sarcastic humor pages back here in the meta section, and it is labelled as such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment "Actions which negatively affect others" is vague, overbroad, and falsely equated with disruptive editing in the above proposal. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 19:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It is broad on purpose. We aren't here to try to itemize every possible disruption, but those that don't affect anyone (ie: you aren't edit warring over it, no BLP issue) are fine, but putting hoaxes in article space just as you would a regular article DOES affect someone negatively: the reader. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Some people would consider "seeing an April Fools' Day joke" to be something that negatively affects them. Anomie⚔ 20:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
      • We can either write tomb that lists every possible option, or rely on WP:COMMONSENSE. It doesn't matter if one person thinks it is negative, it is consensus that matter, and that is how any situation would be judged. This is not so different than how we deal with any other policy, so I just don't understand the confusion. The more specific you make a policy, the more it will be wikilawyered as their actions being an "exception". Again, common sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• "the community is tolerant of harmless April Fools jokes" is a vague phrase. April Fools jokes are funny lies, so they can't be harmless in an encyclopedia. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just get rid of them - proposal (by AlasdairEdits)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Of the many things wikipedia is not WP:NOT we should add it is not a place for "April fools jokes" - these jokes serve at best to confuse readers and distract from our mission, and at worse create disruption, drama and vandalism. When this project was a child we could forgive childish things but we are grown up now - the idea of presenting deliberatley false information to our readers on any day is totally incompatible with our mission as an encylopedia. We would not tolerate this any other time of the year, we should not do so just because a few rich western privaledged countries endorse it as a tradition on one random day AlasdairEdits (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support An encyclopedia is definitely not the place for jokes, even if it's outside of the mainspace. — Music1201 ^talk 22:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support I think the community would be better served if we left this practice behind. Most of the "jokes" aren't really all that funny. It's typically the same thing every year, nominate a prominent page for deletion (ANI, RFAR, the main page, etc.), fake block notices, and unrealistic RfAs. It's a hassle to clean up and some editors even stop editing on April 1st to avoid it all. Not to mention that the main page jokes have gotten quite puerile. (DYK... that hurling poo-poo at your opponent is frowned upon?, that He was gay?, that a British giant swallowed a little red virgin?) These hooks reflect poorly on the community and damages our reputation as a source for encyclopedic information. Mike V • Talk 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support – This is an encylopaedia, not a music hall. I don't understand what these types of gags are meant to do to advance the mission of Wikipedia. As they are not intended for that purpose, kibosh them. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Somewhat Support, the mainpage content is generally fine as it's been reviewed by multiple editors prior to posting, but the other one-off "jokes" are generally disruptive and unnecessary. There's only so many times one can nominate the Main Page or ANI for deletion before it becomes stale. Nakon 01:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Support – Wikipedia is not social media. Readers don't come to mainspace for jokes, and editors shouldn't be encouraged to post them. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Support Too much idiotic or childish nonsense is spewed up every April, much of it utterly unfunny or lacking humour, and some of the arguments around what should or should not be put in certain places beggars belief. Comedy doesn't translate very well, and as a global product, what is hysterical to some is dross to others. – SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Support The community is too big now for all of us to get on the same page for humor. I'm sorry that the opportunities some have enjoyed are going away, but this just doesn't make sense anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Support They're a massive distraction and take up time and effort that is better spent elsewhere, both in the creation, monitoring and subsequent cleanup. It's detrimental to the project in terms of the resources it consumes and the impression it gives our readers. Also it's worth remembering that April Fools' Day is not celebrated in all cultures and making it a Wikipedia "thing" alienates those who don't partake in it or, worse, don't know about the concept. WaggersTALK 08:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Support banning everything in Mainspace and article talk pages unless part of an organised, carefully constructed ITN or DYK. As for the puerile stuff on user talk pages, that's up to the Fools. Leaky Caldron 20:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Support with caveats as the next best thing to my "delete the jokes on April 2" proposal below. Much of these so-called "jokes" are 1) unfunny at best, 2) cover political or sensitive issues 1 2, or 3) incredibly repetitive and unoriginal 3 4. If this really is the epitome of Wikipedia humour then we sure are a humourless bunch. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
11. Support (except for gags that do not interfere with maintenance venues, such as in talk pages): Too much cleanup on April 2 of mostly repetitive, humorless jokes. If we want to "attract" new editors by convincing them that Wikipedia is not a stygian website, one April Fools gag in mainspace will do (as long as it is obvious and does not otherwise interfere with content, relevant: wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Wikipedia), but the nominating of vital articles for deletion and fooling around in RfA with cat nominations should stop. — Esquivalience (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
12. Support. Treat this nonsense the same way we would on any other day of the year. Everyking (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Support. If it was ever funny, it stopped being so many years ago.-gadfium 03:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
14. Support I have a lot of sympathy with the principle that a little bit of fun one day a year could be a light-hearted way of letting off steam, provided that it is kept within tight limits. In practice, those limits are hard to police, and the lack of agreement on whether these jokes are humorous, tediously silly or offensive cannot be resolved; comedy is highly subjective. The result is edit wars and other forms of timewasting conflict.
    An excellent example of how to handle April Fools is the WP:DYK practice of selecting stories which appear to be hoaxes, but are actually true. There may be scope for expanding this principle to other areas of Wkipedia, such as portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
15. Support per BHG. April Fools jokes may be reasonable in newspapers etc where several people will review the proposed joke to ensure it genuinely is funny to most people who will see it and is unlikely to cause longterm confusion/annoyance, but in Wikipedia they are a net negative (especially as they may even be used by some users as an excuse to be deliberately disruptive). DexDor ^(talk) 06:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
16. Support - I find April Fools jokes childish in general and don't think they're funny. Banedon (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
17. Support April fools jokes serve no purpose to a encyclopedia. They cause confusion and misdirection. This is a want to the editors that are supporting the jokes, not a need and the jokes aren't worth the effort. Chase (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
18. Support. Let's mark the occasion by ignoring it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
19. Support, I don't think misleading people is funny. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
20. Support This special project for humor is obviously disruptive, as RfCs and Rules for it, and even an ArBcom case! has shown. It divides the community, not build it. The simple fact is there is NOCONSENSUS on humorousness - or is that disagreement about humourness?. Ha. But actual work-a-day humor (if I can humour you) will go on as usual every-day, doing its usual thing. Just say yes to discarding this, oh so specialness, and preciousness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We're far to imperfect to take ourselves this seriously. A little disruption is worth it if one new editor thinks the joke is funny and might be inclined to join us. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose we can and often do come across to newer editors as too stodgy and boring. A little humor, if done in a reasonable way at a time when humor can be and often is expected, probably does us more good than harm in the long run. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose As a point of order, making April Fool’s Day Jokes within articles is already prohibited, and should be treated as vandalism and dealt with according to Wikipedia:Vandalism. With the exception of the Main Page, jokes can only be made in the project namespace or other locations where casual readers won’t see them. Moving on, I believe that April Fools jokes are actually a benefit to Wikipedia, since they foster a sense of community and are great for stress relief, both of which are good for editor retention. As John Carter and Carl Fredrik already pointed out, the allowance of April Fool’s Day jokes also makes us look less stodgy and more inviting to new members. Finally, I believe banning April Fools jokes outright is incredibly counter-productive. The overwhelming majority of these jokes are harmless, and it would be a waste of everyone’s time to go through the effort of cracking down on them. Additionally, I don’t think it’s within Wikipedia’s best interest to sanction productive editors who like participating in a little hijinks one day out of the year. Finally, this proposal as written would prohibit friendly prank seasonal messages on user talk pages, which seems a bit excessive. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose. This would be hard to enforce because many Fools' Day jokes are localized on user talk pages (as in fake block notices) and otherwise do no tangible harm to the encyclopedia. As Spirit of Eagle notes, we do not currently tolerate jokes that mislead our encyclopedia readers (by making them in mainspace) – such edits are dealt with as vandalism. A truly well done April Fools' joke, however, might actually make the encyclopedia better by strengthening friendships within the community. If the goal with this proposal is to minimize the more disruptive April Fools' Day silliness, banning everything isn't the right approach. I would agree that stuff like nominating Earth for deletion is getting old – as an alternative, perhaps we should be closing-on-sight joke XfDs. Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose We shouldn't kill off the community. Humour is a way of binding people together, and keeping it limited to one day prevents disruption outwith that period. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose - As noted above we need a bit of humour and it does create friendships etc (Hell I've even got a barnstar for my AFD humour[1] so not all is bad), Some April Fools stuff can be hillarious and others can make you lose the will to live, Overall I don't think there's much of a problem and IMHO a bit pf banter on here for a day does us all the world of good. –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Wikipedia is accused of being hostile to new editors, and the serious solemness that parts of this project have taken make it almost unrecognizable to an old hat like me. We should close fake XfDs on sight, but I think that things like funny DYK bylines are clever ways of making people more interested in getting involved in Wikipedia and the editing process and general. Nomader (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Spirit of Eagle and Mz7. ansh666 07:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose per users above. I also noticed many users who voted in favour of discarding April Fool jokes merely voted that way because they believe those jokes were "unfunny", "childish" or "disruptive" etc. Sounds like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Dps04 (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose Fun is an important part of Wikipedia. IF Jokes were not allowed, why would the Department of Fun be allowed to? Humor helps people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs)
11. Strong oppose WP:IAR. But if you want a serious justification new editors would be very happy to know that we allow just a bit of humour here - otherwise WP can be rather dry at times. Let's encourage newer editors to get involved in the community and perhaps it will improve our ever-dwindling editor count. We could also improve our jokes so that everyone enjoys them and this RfC doesn't come up again Y -NottNott|talk 15:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose - if an established user does a small April Fools' joke out of the way, it does no harm; users should be here to build and maintain the encyclopedia, but small amounts of other activities are certainly permitted when done by users who are, in fact, here for the encyclopedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Support - we must always be serious, every day. Even if there's a tradition of levity on April 1 all the way back to the beginning of the project, we must forbid it. But even if we wanted to do so, which I don't, I don't think we could. Oppose - Jonathunder (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
14. Oppose there's nothing inherently wrong with April Fools jokes. They don't necessarily confuse readers or constitute disruptive behaviour. The idea that absolutely everything not essential to the encyclopedia must be removed or forbidden does more harm than good. Wikipedia is a community, and occasional humour helps to foster that. Attempting to ban all April Fools jokes is likely to do more harm than good. Hut 8.5 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose. While I admit that the comedy displayed on April Fools Day this year was a bit immature (but then again, I know quite a few adults who enjoy toilet humor), it does us well to embrace a more carefree and receptive attitude once in a while. As long as we don't make any breaches in BLP policy, there's really no harm done. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 02:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
16. Strong Oppose, clearly harmless unless it violates rules. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
17. Oppose Basically on principle simply because we treat Wikipedia like it's a very straight-laced, very proper library of quiet and study when it comes across as very dour and self-important, sometimes even bitter at the concept an open encyclopedia may be inhabited by people who like fun. Sadly, this isn't some college library run by a tactiturn old schoolmarm demanding discipline in the hallowed halls she presides but a place with actual humans, some of which haven't forgotten that not everyone will be like them and actually want to laugh rather than sneer contemptuously over our half-moon spectacles at the "childish" actions of others. tutterMouse (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
18. Oppose Many good reasons have been offered above to oppose this well-intentioned, but misguided proposal. I can't think of anything to add to those. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
19. Oppose, per the excellent arguments that can be read above. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 17:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
20. Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is built by a community. Humor can help us all blow off steam and see each other as real people. Humor was also a big part of getting me to join Wikipedia. As long as it is kept out of the way of readers, tasteful and people are adequately warned, I think the benefits outweigh the inconvenience.
21. Oppose. While this proposal is most likely in good faith, there are strict guidelines already for April Fools' jokes, and they can't be made in the article namespace. Therefore, there's no real damage done for the reader. If you don't want to participate, then don't participate. Just don't ruin it for others. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
22. Oppose Don't be a killjoy. Besides many people come to Wikipedia that might not otherwise have come, on AFD specifically for the jokes. Who are we to let the internet down? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Not if they do not disrupt what our readers encounter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutral/variant

1. Support something in NOT about this, but not a total ban, which would have a strong reek of WP:CREEP / WP:BUREAUCRACY to it. As someone said about another of these proposals, it won't prevent jokes, just result in punishment for them. It is correct that WP is not a humor website, so this point could be integrated into WP:NOT#WEBHOST. See it as a policy reason to delete the jokes, but not to punish people for them unless they're engaged in a WP:DE/WP:NOTHERE pattern of abusing WP for this purpose on a regular basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• For those who say encyclopedias are not places for jokes, please read WP:COMMUNITY. The nutshell states clearly that there is nothing wrong with occasionally doing other things than writing the encyclopedia. --Dps04 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• What precisely is the scope of this proposal? Does it effect jokes made in userspace? What would happen if someone made an April Fools Day joke: would it just be removed, or would it be a sanctionable offence? Would it be treated as vandalism or evidence of being WP:NOTHERE or disruptive? Presumably there would continue to be TFA and DYK sections on the main page; would the TFA and DYK people have a responsibility to ensure that nothing which could be considered amusing or surprising featured on the main page on April 1? Would there be specific kinds of TFA/DYK which were banned on April 1? What would happen if an amusing DYK featured on April 1? I'd like more detail on how this proposal would work before I !vote on it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do nothing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do nothing — keep the harmless jokes. Nothing so far has actually been a real problem, just minor annoyances — those can be handled.

Support

1. Support Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support as an option. I would prefer to keep the jokes in some way, if for no other reason than to give regular editors something unusual to look forward to, than to remove them completely. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support as the best option. I am unconcerned about this one day of goofiness. --Jayron32 02:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - Best option on here me thinks. –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Support - Nothing to add from my comment in another section. Nomader (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Support, within the existing guidelines that pertain to personal attacks, BLP, etcetera. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC).
8. Support, best option. Harmless jokes should not be punished. ansh666 07:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Support, why punish people for enjoying themselves? --Dps04 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Support, per Dpso4. Also, I the ArbCom case was too large for its own good. It should have been less major, and we want to have fun. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
11. Support, per all the above -NottNott|talk 15:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
12. Support The Arbcom case occurred because a number of Wikipedians engaged in edit warring, failed to assume good faith, and improperly handled a deletion discussion several days after the April Fools Day frivolities had concluded. These were not pranks, but simply clear-cut violations of policy that did not even occur on April 1st. I will probably be voting for one of the proposals stating that policy applies even on April Fools Day (since this is just codifying something that has or should have always been the case), but beyond this I’m not seeing much justification to radically alter our April Fools Day celebrations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Support Per all above. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 09:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
14. Support while not all April Fools day jokes are harmless, few real examples actually are harmful and sensible boundaries are typically respected. What problems we've had are tend to be either not confined to April Fools jokes or blown some way out of proportion. Hut 8.5 22:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
15. Support - all other options presented are instruction creep. Jonathunder (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
16. Support, as long as the jokes are indeed harmless. My only concern would be jokes about living people, which could be misinterpreted as derogatory or libelous; these should be monitored more carefully. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
17. Support, per above. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
18. Few people object to clear-cut jokes, unless its at the expense of something they care about. But I think what gets people riled up about April Fools' is that people who are gagging to be openly disruptive seem to have a licence to do it for one day a year, and to be more subtle about it the rest of the time. My proposal below addresses that without actually attempting to codify a line between humour and disruption. Essentially, let people do as they please, but make clear that being able to get away with something at one point in time does not necessarily make doing it a good idea in the longer run. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
19. Support. Doing nothing apparently doesn't give a pass on BLP, since there wasn't one this time, but we don't need to add any more histrionics over it. Wnt (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
20. Support, per above. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 17:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
21. Support, essentially. Maybe some minor changes need to be made, but a major overhaul is not necessary. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
22. Support KieranTribe 22:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
23. Support, It's not broken so don't fix it. Besides, with all the serious stuff and hard work that we do here, we deserve a day of jollity and merriment. Plus I've noted on social media that non-Wikipedia editors have come to expect us to make jokes on AFD and given that the likes of YouTube stopped when they went "corporate" we should maintain our traditions for the benefit of all. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
24. Support. Users are going to do this sort of thing regardless of any guideline; Short of locking down the site for the day, it's something we'll just have to put up with. Also, those that were around for the first year April Fools was hectic - 2005 - will remember that the IRC channel was redirected, we had 'Requests for degodkingship', and editor's photos were being edited into articles by users. It's nowhere near as bad as it used to be and cracking down might just make it more fun to misbehave on the day. KaisaL (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Wikipedia can and should make sure that "humor" is not used as a weapon against any person, place, group, religion or other entity. Collect (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

   I don't see how that is in conflict with allowing jokes. Jokes or pranks are never an excuse to excessively insult and demean other people - if a joke goes too far it is treated as vandalism or hate speech. Just because you're joking doesn't mean you can cast judgement out the window. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose – Doing nothing has led to ArbCom level annoyance, and a suggestion by ArbCom to do something. A sound proposal that makes standards a bit clearer and puts them in perspective, without actually changing the rules, while confirming established practice for the multitude of jokes that didn't get to ArbCom, like Mz7's proposal below, is preferable above doing nothing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - recent events show that the statement above is untrue. If ArbCom time is taken up on the matter then it's safe to say some harm has been done. WaggersTALK 08:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose - If there are problems (and there are, as this year we had both a BLP issue and a policy being redirectd to a user talk page), we must deal with them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose - April Fools jokes are a concern, and doing nothing is a bad idea. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose - While I don't quite fall on the "get rid of it" side of things, it's not a free for all. Also, "harmless jokes" is meaningless. Might as well say "keep only funny jokes". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose what editors do on April 1 makes Wikipedia look stupid and childish. Time to fix that. SSTflyer 09:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose Nothing drastic, but there is room for improvement. AIRcorn (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Not harmless. Everyking (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose Ignoring the issue or pretending there isn't one won't resolve the problem. This has escalated to an arbcom case and it would be foolish to not try and remediate things in some shape or form. Mike V • Talk 22:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose . The problem is that too much of what happens is not harmless, and the irresoluble arguments over the boundaries of harmfulness waste far too much editorial time and energy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose - since I supported AlasdairEdits' proposal to get rid of them. Same rationale: they're dumb and silly and childish and not something I am amused by. Banedon (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Oppose- Do nothing is right but in a different sense - people have their usual humour everyday, but say yes to discarding this, oh so, specialness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
14. Oppose. If this has already risen to (slid into?) ARBCOM-level dispute, obviously the status quo is insufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose. If it's truly disruptive, then we need to deal with it (particularly in cases of BLP). But having a sense of humor is not inherently disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I think something the people opposing this are missing is the word "harmless". This isn't a laissez-faire anything-goes proposal, but is instead suggesting that we don't waste community resources chasing down tiny harmless jokes instead of harmful ones like the one that made it to Arbcom. ansh666 08:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban Joke XfDs, but allow other harmless jokes (by Spirit of Eagle)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Every Aprils Fools day, AfD and related deletion sections are spammed with prank deletion nominations. These nominations are frequently seen as tedious and unfunny, and create substantial work for Wikipedians who do not wish to participate in April Fool’s Day shenanigans. This proposal would ban joke XfDs, but would not prohibit other harmless jokes. The proposal, if enacted, would cut down on April Fools day spam and encourage Wikipedians who do wish to participate in April Fool’s Day to be more creative with their pranks.

Support

Support as nominator This is a compromise that I hope will eliminate one of the more notorious aspects of April Fool’s Day on Wikipedia, while still allowing these festivities to take place. As most pranks in past years have been prank deletion nominations, I imagine that this will also cut down on the number of pranks performed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Moved to oppose Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It's not going to stop people, just cause them to be punished. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I to a point get sick to death of articles being renominated over and over again (Wikipedia being a perfect example) but for the most part it's not too bad, IMHO it's easier just to allow it all then it would be trying to enforce rules etc. –Davey2010^Talk 14:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Recursive AfD's are annoying, but some are actually funny, and they are the best part of April Fools on WP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose As ThePlatypusofDoom says, joke AfDs are the funniest part of April Fools here. It should be fairly easy to tell joke nominations, and it's only for one day. Maybe it even lures more people to WP:AfD just to see the nominations, and then they stick around more for serious requests? Probably not - but still fun to keep these around. -NottNott|talk 15:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
5. String oppose - Joke XfDs are among the best of April Fools' stuff we do; if we handle them the way we have at AfD (separate section, no tagging of the discussed pages they don't interfere with anything. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose After careful consideration, I’d like to withdrawal my support for my proposal (but keep the proposal itself open) for a couple of reasons. First, I think I’ve overestimated the harm of joke AfDs, since they’ve always been cleaned up during the first few hours of April 2nd (often by people who had participated in April Fools Day festivities). Second, in retrospect I seem to have been attempting to give joke AfDs the boot per my own personal preferences rather than any overarching harm they cause. While I believe many of my criticisms of joke AfDs are valid, I can no longer stand by my proposal. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose, per above. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose - I'm not a big fan of joke XfDs, but don't think they're necessarily more damaging than anything else. A hassle for those cleaning them up, but that applies to almost all of these. I think that some people furthermore find XfDs to be the highlight jokes, so it seems like most who support this might as well support getting rid of the jokes altogether? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

In regard of AfDs and also RfDs, these should already be viewed as out of bounds for joke nominations, as they place a prominent banner at the head of an article or prevent a redirect working as normal, thus distracting the general reader. Joke MfDs affecting only pages related to the internal workings of Wikipedia, these should be allowable if confined to the one day: Noyster (talk), 09:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Second the comment by Noyster - these aren't allowed as is. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What we currently do is we create the joke nomination page (with a {{Humor}} tag) and transclude it to the log, but we don't put the red banner in the article. It'll be seen by editors who look at the AfD logs, but not readers who only look at articles. This is allowable by current practice. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1. Mz7 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with joke AfDs isn't the AfD pages we create and transclude for them (especially if we transclude these in a separate section), but the red banners on the articles. Just ban those, not the AfD discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added a proposal below about the XfD logs that would cut down on clutter - it's been our practice for a few years but I feel like it should be codified. ansh666 07:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal by Collect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

April 1st, and some other days in various places and cultures, have traditionally been days for "pranks" and "hoaxes." Wikipedia, however, is not a site for "pranks" or "hoaxes" at any time which might adversely appear directed as an attack and affect any person, religion, culture, group or place in any way, on any page. This does not preclude pages clearly marked as "humor" in areas specifically allowed by policy to have such pages. Edits which negatively affect others will be handled as disruption.

Does not disallow any use of "special days" for "humor", but sets a strict rule that such pages not be deliberately used to attack or negatively impact any person, place, religion or other entity in any way. I suggest this proposal comports with current policies, and makes clear that "special days" do not abrogate any policies intended to protect such entities. Collect (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC) emended to make clear that intent is what we must also consider. Collect (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support although there might be some cause to tweak the wording. The number of things which could negatively affect anything in any way include a lot of factually accurate statements, and I can't see precluding them. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support but merge with Mz7's take, below, and extend to some additional namespaces. I've posted this support after the modifications I can see as of this writing. This seems to be a refinement of the first proposal. Basically, I support the gist of the first proposal, without prejudice to copy-editing it a bit, as this proposal would do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Per below. "Any group" and "in any way" is simply too broad to be at all practical or even appropriate. If someone jokingly makes a proposal for changing map templates to better reflect the truth that the earth is flat, or, while trying to improve Sovereign citizen movement handles their confusion at the bizarre claims by joking about them on the talk page, that's not something that should, by policy, require administrative action by default. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Adam Cureden and below. Far too broad. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Too broad. -NottNott|talk 15:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose, Way too broad. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose. What groups? Which ways? Can you narrow it down a bit? Adam provides good examples above of good-natured jokes that can go terribly wrong. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

While I think the intent is good, let's say I make a joke about, say, flat-earthers, or antivaccinationists, or some other group, by poking fun of the views that we as an encyclopedia agree are wrong. If I'm using it as a long attack on User:Flatearther, that's one thing, but if I'm doing it in the context of, say, a joking proposal that intentionally misunderstands the NPOV policy, or even an explanation of why NPOV is the way it is, taking some of the more ridiculous views as examples, it should NOT be against policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 13:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that "we as an encyclopedia" should not make any statements of position as an encyclopedia - but only use what reliable sources state as fact when we make a claim of fact, and cite opinions to those who hold those opinions when dealing with claims of opinion. This is, as I understand it, a matter of the core principles of Wikipedia.

F'rinstance "George Gnarph, the famed anti-vaxxer, died from a stone thrown at him to try to vaccinate him from his stupid ideas" is not, in my judgement a "humourous attack" which should be permitted on any Wikipedia page. And, IMO, is currently against policy, and should be clearly considered as against policy. Collect (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Really, that's what you think the example is? How about, on a talk page, "Homeopath Gene Gulpur is quoted in this article on a scientific topic. Like his products, his words should be diluted to non-existence, which, according to him, will make them stronger anyway." - because that's just as forbidden by your proposed text. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually - the example you give is quite easily construed as a threat to make a person "non-existent."

" Helen Wibb wrote that she wanted to make George Gnarph "non-existent" -

do you think a prosecutor might view that as a threat, and not as a joke? So yes - the example you give is something which should not be allowed on that basis - on the basis that threat to do away with a living person is no longer a joke. I believe that the GamerGate Affair makes that absolutely clear - there is a big difference between a threat and a joke. A "joke" that a female game-writer should be "raped" is pretty definitely far beyond the pale, I trust you would agree. Collect (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

...Try reading all the text: "his words should be diluted to non-existence": it never said he should be, and if that's the kind of interpretation you want to use, where saying someone's words should be removed from an article is the same as threatening them with death, then your proposal that such ridiculous reinterpretation should be used to censure people should end up diluted to non-existence. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Try noting what the hell I wrote - you seem to view this as a high school debating society, FGS. So you would say "His books should be burned" or the like is not really objectionable? Sorry - Rhetoric 101. Collect (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: I agree with Adam Cuerden. These are not meant to attack. The homeopathy joke wasn't a violation of BLP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: I think you have the right idea, but you are making it too broad. A comment on GamerGate is obviously malicious, while sarcasm, such as the homeopathy joke, isn't. There needs to be a limit, but you have set the limit so it's really easy to exceed. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New section at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (alternative text)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is an alternative to Dennis Brown's proposal above that hopefully addresses the overbroad concerns. A new section will be created at the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline, which states:

All edits on April Fools' Day must continue to adhere to all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including (but not limited to) edit warring, no personal attacks and the biographies of living persons policy. With the exception of the Main Page, all edits that are intended to be humorous should be kept out of the article namespace and be tagged with {{Humor}} (or equivalent template, such as the inline {{April fools}} or {{4-1}}) to avoid misleading users.

The goal with this is to codify in a guideline what has already been established practice (see WP:FOOLS). It makes clear that edits which contravene WP:BLP on April 1 will be treated no differently than on any other day of the year, and while it does not encourage jokes explicitly, it leaves the door open for truly harmless ones that are only give others a good laugh, without disrupting the editing process. Mz7 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, as proposer, I suppose. Mz7 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support with the proviso that perhaps the "equivalent template" might be forgettable if the content itself makes it overwhelmingly obviously unnecessary. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support as an excellent codification of Wikipedia:Rules for Fools Chickadee46 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Support This is just common sense, but sometimes common sense needs to be spelt out. AIRcorn (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Support, though I would add WP:NPA into the mix. ansh666 07:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Support, including Ansh666's suggestion to add NPA in the mix. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Support - I'm happy with either versions of the wording, the important thing is that disruptive editing is stopped and it's clear what's (supposedly) humour and what isn't. Marking things with a humour tag does defeat the purpose of April Fools' Day (it makes it pretty much impossible to fool someone) but in my book that's a good thing. Wikipedia isn't the place for such tomfoolery. WaggersTALK 08:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Support - Like above I too would add NPA in there, Other than that I think it's spot on. –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Support Better wording than previously. -NottNott|talk 15:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Support Harmless jokes are fine, using April Fools Day as an excuse to violate policy is not. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
11. Support - April Fools' Day isn't an excuse to do absolutely everything; there must be red lines for that, and BLP os clearly one of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
12. Strong support. This seems like the best way to put it, IMO. Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Support - Better than nothing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
14. Support per proposer. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
15. Support should allow us to have some fun while keeping it tasteful. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
16. The template {{4-1}} does seem to help distinguish jokes from what some of these unhappy people may interpret as real comments. Yep, I just called some people "unhappy". That is not a personal attack. (Another template, which would people that things aren't personal attacks, also could be mandated.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
17. Support - Although as I state above it makes more sense and good humor or humour, to get rid of this oh so special stuff, this will make it better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
18. Support but extend to cover additional reader-facing namespaces: Help, Portal, File/Image, and both Category and Template where they intersect with mainspace or the Portal or Image namespaces. I support the original proposal, and reasonable attempts to copy-edit and refine it, as this one does. I see it as an overall improvement, without prejudice against Collect's attempts in the same direction. What I expect is that the three proposals will merge and whatever we finally use will reflect these and other tweaking suggestions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
19. Support as per above, mostly. This should be in a guideline. ~ Rob^Talk 19:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — If you need to tag it with the humor template it isn't a joke. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

   Labeling a TV show as a comedy does not suddenly make it not funny (unless it was already). If the jokes are any good they should survive the tag. AIRcorn (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose "all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines" is going a bit far, as it would ban things like joke XfD nominations (which are harmless). But I agree with the sentiment. Hut 8.5 22:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

   It would be a stretch to apply this proposal against joke XfDs. Current policies/guidelines don't stop you from making a joke XfD nomination, but they do allow such nominations to be closed early as "speedy keep". As with other guidelines, this proposal is intended to be treated with common sense, and I do not envision that any sanctions will be issued for actions that are truly harmless. If the community truly wants to ban joke XfDs, there is an explicit proposal for that above. Mz7 (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

   I should rephrase: Current policies/guidelines already allow joke XfDs to be closed at any time as "speedy keep", but our practice is to tolerate joke nominations to an extent. However, if the jokes are repeated to the point where they aren't funny anymore and actually disrupt the editing process, that's when it needs to stop. Mz7 (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

   On any other day of the year, starting a frivolous or joke XfD nomination would be interpreted as disruptive editing. It would be closed by the first experienced editor who saw it and it would probably lead to warnings or sanctions for the person who started it. If the same rules applied on the first of April then this would happen then as well. There are certain lines which shouldn't be crossed such as BLP violations, but the test of whether something is actually harmful is far more useful and relevant than the test of whether it violates some policy or guideline, particularly a technical one. Hut 8.5 20:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

   That "test of whether something is actually harmful" is the test we use (or are supposed to use) to enforce any policy/guideline on any day of the year. WP:NOTBURO tells us to focus on improving the encyclopedia and not on strictly enforcing the rules—that principle doesn't change with this proposal. The intent of this proposal is not to state that "what is seen as disruptive on other days of the year will also be seen as disruptive in April 1", but to state that April 1 does not excuse explicit policy violations, such as edit warring and BLP, and that if such violations are harmful, they will be sanctioned. (I could add that in as a footnote, if necessary.) There is not, to my knowledge, a policy or guideline that explicitly prohibits jokes in XfD, but such XfDs can be closed early as speedy keep. We decide whether we need to sanction editors who make such jokes with common sense and on a case-by-case basis, focusing on if their jokes have harmed the encyclopedic process, as well as their intentions. Mz7 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

   I'm sure that the intention of this proposal is to make sure that violations of things like BLP and edit warring are explicitly forbidden, and I would be happy to support a proposal which said so, but I think this one goes considerably further in including every policy and guideline. I think you're taking a rather rosy view of what would happen if someone decided to create joke XfDs on a typical day of the year, and the consequences of doing so (or at least doing so repeatedly) would be much more severe than just closing them as speedy keep. The editor would be warned, sanctioned and if necessary blocked, as such behaviour would be considered disruptive editing if not outright vandalism. Yes, we have discretion in how we apply policies and guidelines, but our policies and guidelines are meant to reflect what is accepted here and should be followed in the majority of situations, particularly when there is no good reason to do otherwise. The exceptions are largely couched in terms of "improving the encyclopedia", and it's hard to argue that joke XfDs actually do this. It is clear that our standards and expectations on 1 April are substantially different to the other days of the year, and we should recognise that. Hut 8.5 21:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose primarily for the requirement to tag jokes. Fine for things like essays, terrible on talk pages. @Mz7, John Carter, Davey2010, NottNott, Spirit of Eagle, Od Mishehu, Marksomnian, Rhododentrites, Waggers, Davey 2010, Chickadee46, Aircorn, Ansh666, Waggers, and Frances Schonken:: Have you considered the sheer disruption of a million big banner templates on the main page, on talk pages, on everything? Because that seriously can't be made policy, because it'd be more disruptive than the jokes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

   @Adam Cuerden: We have an inline template, {{April fools}}, that works pretty well on talk pages. The requirement would be {{humor}} or an equivalent template, which {{April fools}} is. It looks like this:. Realize that tagging all jokes is already established practice, and the purpose is to make it 100% clear that the edit is not intended to be taken seriously. The Main Page is exempt from the tagging requirement. Mz7 (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

   The ping did not work for me so probably did not for some of the others either (I read on here somewhere that there is a limit to the number of editors that can be pinged at once). Anyway, the main page is exempt and the inline ones would work in cases where the banner doesn't. I doubt there are a million or even close to that joke edits. AIRcorn (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• In response to the feedback above, I've added WP:NPA among the policies explicitly mentioned. Mz7 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

We could just use WP:COMMONSENSE, this may not be needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel like given our history of contentiousness surrounding these jokes, something more than "just an essay" is needed as a tool to combat disruption on April 1. It may be common sense to most of us, but it would be helpful to have something authoritative to point to when dealing with users who are being truly disruptive on the day. Mz7 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Re. "something ... to point to" – how about this shortcut proposal? →

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree with the main page exemption. Funny content in the main page should be factual (like featured articles on unusual subjects), but I disagree with inserting jokes in the main page. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think the requirement to tag with {{Humour}} goes too far: As written, it means that talk page edits and the like will need tagged, and such signalling rins the joke. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Adam Cuerden: the Main Page is exempt in the proposal, and it's been standard practice since the last RfC by those aware of the rules to tag almost every joke page or section, talk pages included, with either the humor template or the smaller {{April fools}} template. ansh666 07:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Adam Cuerden:: due to a small error your ping above didn't work. I just created a less obtrusive April Fools template, to be placed after the pun of a funny joke: {{4-1}}. This is what it would look like supposing I would be able to say something funny here.

  If such lean April Fools template can be accepted in the mix of the above proposal, I suppose it would be able to address the bulk of opposers' concerns above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  Couldn't we just say "Must be clear that it is a joke", and leave it at that? One doesn't need to have a special, standardised way to mark things enforced by policy. And all trying to have that would do would get the policy changed next year. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Could live with that. Suppose we replaced the last sentence of the proposal above:

... With the exception of the Main Page, all edits that are intended to be humorous should be kept out of the article namespace and be tagged with {{Humor}} (or equivalent template) to avoid misleading users.

...by something in this vein:

... With the exception of the Main Page, all edits that are intended to be humorous should be kept out of the article namespace and their humorous nature should be clear, for which templates such as {{Humor}}, {{April fools}} or {{4-1}} may be helpful.

Would that work? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: That works for me! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken and Adam Cuerden: I'm not sure I like that wording because current practice is very explicitly to tag all jokes beyond the Main Page. This proposal only means to codify that practice. Remember that at the end of the day with guidelines, WP:COMMONSENSE prevails and the occasional exception applies. Our administrators are, for the most part, pretty clueful, and I do not imagine that they will block anyone for making untagged jokes that are a) clearly jokes and b) not disruptive to the encyclopedia. If there is truly a problem with this, we should already have evidence to demonstrate that problem because, once again, the proposal codifies current practice. Something like {{April fools}} is unobtrusive and really doesn't take a lot of effort. Mz7 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added {{April fools}} and {{4-1}} as examples of "equivalent template" in the proposal. Mz7 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7 and Frances Schonken:For example, at FPC, jokes happen, but are almost never tagged, just closed after a day (my favourite being the pixel, enlarged 1000x, a.k.a. a one-colour square).) I just don't think trying to force templating is the right way. We're writers here. We can use words; we don't need to template everything, especially on talk pages and noticeboards and suchlike with a harmless joke. Worse, as written, if I write a serious proposal with a little humourous phrasing, I'd be required to tag it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I think you're missing the point here. We're not trying to force all humorous edits to be marked, we're forcing all edits made in the name of April Fools' Day to be marked. Anything which would be okay on any other day (e.g. uploading a silly file for personal use or cracking jokes on a colleague's talk page) are fine, it's stuff that would be considered disruptive any other day (e.g. joke XfDs or adding a fake block notice on a colleague's talk page) that needs to be marked. ansh666 18:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not what this says, and, frankly, I think if you try to push through a requirement to do so, it'll be overturned promptly on April 2, 2017 if we're not careful to be proportionate and attribute some basic reading-for-comprehension skills. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, we've already been doing this. Most of the proposals on this page are intended to codify already-existing practice. Besides, it's the spirit of the law vs letter of the law here, and the latter is what we call wikilawyering. ansh666 22:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand Adam Cuerden's concern that the current formulation arguably could take this beyond April Fools' Day:

With the exception of the Main Page, all edits that are intended to be humorous should...

could be replaced by:

With the exception of the Main Page, all April Fools' banter should...

That would keep it on topic, is shorter, and less potential discussion about the applicabilty of the guidance on a joke told on a user talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separate XfD log sections (by Ansh666)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All "joke" AfDs should have their own section on the daily log to avoid cluttering up the page - see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1#April Fool's nominations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1#April Fool's nominations. If there are enough "joke" nominations on other XfDs, the same can be done for those, though historically there has not been.

Support

1. Support, as proposer. ansh666 07:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

   Support - I've wondered why this was never done years ago but I'm assuming it can't physically be done ?, (As one who's participated in moving the AFDs from the top to the bottom- it's one thing moving articles below but it's another having to go from one AFD log to another where you could end up with edit conflicts etc etc, If there's a way of doing this without having to move AFDs from one log to another then this has my full support. –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

2. Support - Sorry I'd completely misread it, The sections already get done (well they did this and last year) however I believe it should simply happen for the foreseeable future and having this suggestion here would or atleast should set it in stone anyway, Support!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support, as this prevents interfering with the legitimate AfDs of the day, which are no less important than those of other days. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Support as both a statement of what we've already been doing and because ultimately, our #1 priority is still to build a high-quality encyclopedia. This allows users who don't want anything to do with the day to maintain their focus on the encyclopedia work, and those who want to have a little bit of fun to do so. Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Support. No reason to merge them all into one list. May as well create a new page to list them all. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Support. If this is used in AFD, why is the same thing not done for XFD? Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Support, for XfD's generally. If we're doing to permit this stuff, it should at least not become an administrative headache.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose Although it isn't a bad idea, I feel it takes the fun out of the AfD's. Part of the funniness is that jokes at a normally serious area are, in general, funnier. I changed my mind after the discussion below, now neutral on the subject ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose per ThePlatypusofDoom above. It's only for one day, and gets editors engaged in the community in a positive way so it still has a net benefit to the project - possibly improving editor retention. That's one thing we can all possibly agree on, but I'm opposing mainly due to WP:RELAX. -NottNott|talk 15:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I should have noted in the proposal statement - this is already practice, we will do this regardless of whether it gets opposed or not. I was just looking to codify it. ansh666 18:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ansh666: But all we need to do is add the humor tag, we don't need to move it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The point is to keep them separate so that people who are looking for either legitimate or joke AfDs to comment on or close (i.e. relisted legitimate ones/closing joke ones on April 2) don't need to spend extra effort scrolling through the logs, which are already massive enough without the extra jokes. ansh666 19:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: This is just moving the AfDs down to the bottom (which, from experience, gives plenty of edit conflicts already!); I'm not sure how feasible a completely separate log page would be. ansh666 20:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I'm fine as it is. A separate log page would be annoying. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Ansh666 ThePlatypusofDoom - Whoops sorry I completely misread the entire thing, Lord knows how!, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Get rid of recursive AfD's (by ThePlatypusofDoom)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recursive AfD's (nominating an AFD for deletion, and then nominating the AFD for the AfD for deletion) are annoying, not very funny, and a pain to clean up. So, I propose that we get rid of recursive AfD's, and let everything else stay the same. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Editors already complain that AfD is clogged up with April Fools jokes. The difference is that the jokes are actually funny, whereas seeing these AfDs all the time get monotonous considering they never pass. Even worse, editors might actually miss out on seeing joke AfDs due to this. Horrifying! Y -NottNott|talk 15:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per above. DexDor ^(talk) 06:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the last thing we need is excessive bureaucracy. No need to set restrictions against every potential scenario. If we are talking about limiting joke AfDs altogether, that's another thing, but I can't see how one or two recursive XfDs create substantial disruption on top of the joke AfDs themselves. SSTflyer 03:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - I personally find some quite funny but then again I'm an immature prick , But on a serious note we don't need all that bureaucracy, We have enough bureaucracy as it is. –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'm of the opinion that joke deletion nominations should be an all or nothing deal. April 1st is a day of silliness, and I'd prefer for the number of rules governing it to be concise and intuitive. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose per much of the above. Either permit joke noms (and put them on their own page, as proposed above), or just ban them. We don't need rules micromanaging what kind of jokes can be made in what form.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• I would like to weigh in here. I support getting rid of recursive XFDs that are for real, i.e. a real recursive XFD for a joke AFD. (For instance, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Fools' Day (4th nomination) exists, but now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Fools' Day (4th nomination) doesn't exist. Great job, guys. PSYCH!) However, I'm fine with fake XFDs for fake AFDs, though (like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (8th nomination)). Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Limit jokes to userspace and non-essential project space (by Ansh666)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has already been consensus to keep jokes out of article space (excluding the Main Page). However, article space isn't the only reader-facing namespace. Extending this to include material in other namespaces such as Template, Category, and File that affect article space will ensure that April Fools' jokes do not affect the reader in any way.

By the same reasoning, jokes in project space should stay off of pages essential to the functioning of the wiki: policies, guidelines, non-humorous essays (e.g. WP:BRD), instruction pages (e.g. Help pages and especially WP:Rules for Fools), and noticeboards (e.g. WP:AIV or WP:UAA).

Any jokes which violate this would be treated as vandalism, just as it would be on any other day. ansh666 19:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - not 100% convinced that this isn't instruction creep, but as proposer, I guess. ansh666 19:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - This is one of those issues I would have thought to be self-evident, until I saw this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support This sounds reasonable to me. Mike V • Talk 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Support - Messing around with policies, guidelines, non-humorous essays, instruction pages, and noticeboards is inherently disruptive. Mz7 (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Support: in the example I cited below, the edit was not vandalism in a strict sense, and being on the Arbitration requests page, only clerks are empowered to take action. And yet re-airing an old dispute lacks collegiality and can stir up past animosities. It would be desirable to redirect editor creativity to other venues. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Support - April Fools edits to templates/files etc that affect articles should be prohibited. DexDor ^(talk) 06:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Support - For users whose first language isn't English, who live in countries that don't celebrate April Fools, for those cases when the joke is simply unclear, for the damage a misguided inappropriate joke causes, and for other reasons presented throughout this RfC, I'd be comfortable with this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Support as alternative to the Mz7 approach above, which I prefer if it is generalized to some additional namespaces. Basically, I think this proposal, the Mz7 one, the Collect one, and the original should merge, and we should also do some of the other proposed things like shunt joke XfD noms into a separate page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Support. "Keep it out of articles" was intended to limit the impact on the day-to-day of the encyclopedia. "Keep it out of everything essential" accomplishes that goal more clearly. ~ Rob^Talk 19:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Nah, buzzkill, WP:BEANS, etc. It shouldn't show up in encyclopedia articles (mainspace minus main page), that's the simple rule I prefer (and any other disturbance being treated as... disturbance). Only other concern: it should be funny. I'd really like to see a good joke on BRD... or on NPOV... or whatever. If it isn't funny, and just a pain in the ... to clean up: disturbance, to be treated as such. Also "non-essential project space" is the kind of terminology that causes more problems than it solves. It would make editors specifically target project space they don't think essential (which will be different for everyone), then huge war with others who think that particular page "essential", and back to ArbCom before you know it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose I agree with Francis Schonken. I think that the template space should not be edited, but essays wold be fine. As long as the edits aren't to any of the 5 pillars, I'm fine. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose As long as it isn't disruptive (basically anything that might be reverted as obvious vandalism) it should be OK. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 09:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose File? Really? So there can't be humourous files uploaded, or anything elsewhere? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

   @Adam Cuerden:Would you be willing to support if we limit the File: namespace restriction to images used in the reader-facing pages? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

5. Oppose, It should be not in mainspace ethier. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

   @CitiesGamer66: Uh, what? Mainspace = article space, and that's been the rule for like a decade (unless you mean the Main Page, in which case that's not an issue to be discussed in this section). ansh666 22:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

6. Oppose - Any April Fools stuff on Articles, Files, Templates etc etc all as far as I'm aware get treated as vandalism and they should do, –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose. We already revert disruptive editing on such pages, treating them as vandalism. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

OpposeThe proposal needs language that limits the ban to areas "that impact article space". I agree with the sentiment behind the proposal, but feel that an outright ban, even on pranks that have no impact on article space such as uploading a silly image to use in a project space prank, goes too far. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC) I've struck my oppose vote, but want a bit more time to consider the proposal. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

@Francis Schonken: article space isn't the only thing in articles, there are many reader-facing templates, files, etc. And, we have to consider that normal editing - including by new users, many of which may not be familiar with April Fools' Day - doesn't just grind to a halt on April 1. If a new user who isn't familiar with April Fools' day sees a "joke" or humor tag (which would be required) on BRD or NPOV, what would happen? Also, the proposal is a lot more specific than just "non-essential", that isn't the language that would be used in the actual page. I have however removed the "important" qualifier from essays - there is no real reason for any of those to be touched either. ansh666 20:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, WP:BEANS. A template or image that shows up in an encyclopedia article... shows up in mainspace, thus don't mess with it. Funny userbox (that doesn't show up in mainspace): go ahead. etc.

Re. "...removed the "important" qualifier from essays" – worse, explain me why I shouldn't write a funny essay on April Fools' Day... entirely counterproductive. Or insert a less morbid picture on WP:ROPE, that with a quip illustrates the same?

Re. "...may not be familiar with April Fools' Day" – well, this is an encyclopedia, explain them (for which the {{humor}} tag seems excellent: it may contain a link to April Fools' Day on that day).

Also, you speak as if the project hadn't survived an April Fools' Day yet. More fun than annoyance, and less ArbCom next time, that's all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The whole point is to have clearly defined guidelines so that everyone, not just the people who are participating in this discussion, knows what's okay or not. I'd say we were barely scraping by until last year's Arbcom mess - we clearly didn't survive last year's unscathed. ansh666 00:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Still, less K.I.S.S. than some of the proposals above, and thus more prone to WP:WIKILAWYERing and the likes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Apart from "clearly defined" there's also K.I.S.S.: this one does not so good in that respect as some of the proposals above. The more complex a definition (even if "clear"), the more litigation. Here I see that room for "litigation" still over the "essential to the functioning of the wiki": who's going to determine that? All jokes that live to the end of the day on April 1 would then by definition be on non-essential pages, so the next day the entire page can be deleted? etc. A clear definition that allows a simple revert of the stuff that isn't even remotely funny, and tagging it with {{humor}} when it could possibly make someone at least smile, would be preferable over dragging it to ArbCom over an inane discussion whether it was on a page "essential to the functioning of the wiki". For instance, is the User:Jimbo Wales page "essential to the functioning of the wiki"? And if it is, is someone else's user page not essential? I wouldn't know, and don't want to be forced to discuss over that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. That in itself is disruptive behavior. ansh666 06:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

True, excellent rationale, struck my original comment above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Changed essays qualifier to non-humorous, as I forgot that those do exist (Category:Wikipedia humor). ansh666 22:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: of course you can, just as you can upload a humorous file any other day of the year. The restriction is meant to prevent disruption in the name of April Fools' Day, such as replacing a file of George Bush with a monkey because "haha April 1". ansh666 07:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Of course they already are, but I personally would prefer it to be codified so that people can't claim ignorance if they do do it, especially the project-space exemptions. ansh666 23:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong I see the logic in it however as I said it all gets treated as vandalism and if someone does decide to ignore it then they get they get blocked (which I've seen countless times anyway), To me it seems silly to if you like "set something in stone" when it kind of already is in stone if that makes sense, As I said I see your logic here and it's a great idea but I personally don't see the point, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Following Spirit of Eagle's recommendation, I've amended the proposal (in red) to clarify that only material that affects mainspace is included. Also, I've separated the proposal into separate chunks that could be separately supported or opposed, if anyone still cares. ansh666 18:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pause April Fools TFAs (by SSTflyer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The WP:Today's featured article section is exempt from April Fools'.

Support

1. As proposer. Unlike DYK, only one article can be featured as TFA on April 1. For the past 11 years, the TFA section has featured articles about unusual topics. Normally, TFA aims to feature articles on topics with a date connection when possible. This means that topics which actually have a date connection or occur on April 1 lacked the opportunity to be featured on April 1. See WP:FADC#April for examples. I think these articles deserve being featured on the day where they have a connection. I don't think TFA being exempt from April Fools' would create an imbalance. ITN has always been exempt from April 1. SSTflyer 03:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Let the folks at TFA decide what they do. There's no requirement for it to be anything. ansh666 04:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
2. 'Oppose So, what about all the articles on unusual topics that want to be featured on April 1? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Pointless to formalise this, given that April Fools has already been deprecated at TFA. FWIW, "Normally, TFA aims to feature articles on topics with a date connection when possible" is factually untrue; the delegates will run articles with date relevance if someone specifically requests at WP:TFAR that they run on a given day, but that's never been any kind of policy. ‑ Iridescent 10:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose No good reason to. It's funny, and I agree with the above. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose, @ThePlatypusofDoom: Yeah, no reason to provide it. It will always be funny. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Ansh666 - I'm sure TFA can handle themselves, –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose No section of the Main Page is forced to engage in April Fools Day, and they can all choose not to participate as In The News has already done. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• I was just alerted to this discussion by a post at WT:TFAR. Note that the TFA coords recently made the call not to run anything meant to be funny next April 1, at WT:Today's_featured_article/requests#2017_April_Fool_TFA, but I'll be happy to reevaluate my part in that after this discussion has run. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New section at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, alternate wording (by User:Chickadee46)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This proposal is based on Mz7's proposal, with a short addendum which attempts to address some of the concerns:

All edits on April Fools' Day must continue to adhere to all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including (but not limited to) edit warring, no personal attacks and the biographies of living persons policy. With the exception of the Main Page, all humorous edits should be kept out of the article namespace and kept away from Wikipedia proposals that are important to the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia and, if they would be considered disruptive on April 2 or any other day, be tagged with {{Humor}} (or equivalent template, such as the inline {{April fools}} or {{4-1}}) to avoid misleading users.

This proposal takes the position on marking humorous edits that Ansh66 described in the discussion of Mz7's proposal,

Anything which would be okay on any other day (e.g. uploading a silly file for personal use or cracking jokes on a colleague's talk page) are fine, it's stuff that would be considered disruptive any other day (e.g. joke XfDs or adding a fake block notice on a colleague's talk page) that needs to be marked.

Chickadee46 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as proposer. Chickadee46 (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose If you count joke XFD's as disruptive, this can be interpreted way too broadly. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose - no just no. –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
3. On second thought, too broad. ansh666 00:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose, too broad. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete all April Fools' jokes by April 2 (or some other date) (by User:Satellizer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Much of the problem as I see it is that Wikipedians looking to have fun on 1 day of the year causes the project to be polluted with unfunny nonsense for the other 364 days. For example, all pages on Category:Wikipedia April Fools' Day 2016 are still here and clog up the AfD namespace; not to mention some of those deal with sensitive/political issues and/or BLPs (the Trump and Kasich AfDs come to mind). The solution to this IMO is to allow Wikipedians to have their fun (within reasonable limits, of course) on April 1 but then erase all the mischief and have the project back to business by April 2. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Unnecessarily bureaucratic, also per discussion on WT:Rules for Fools. ansh666 04:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, also there's no reason too. The WP:APRILFOOLS page is funny, and we need some record of what we did on April 1. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose - We should preserve all of this stuff - No delete it just because a few don't have a sense of humour, Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY & all that. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose The only people who can delete pages on Wikipedia are admins, and they're stretched thin enough as it is. Archived April Fools jokes are harmless, and deleting them is just going to take time away from more pressing matters. (Case in point, there were 34 joke AfDs in 2016 alone that the admins would have to go through the trouble of deleting.) Additionally, I agree with the sentiment that April Fools Day jokes should be preserved for their own sake. Wikipedia:April Fools contains over a decade of April Fools Day jokes, meaning its an incredible record of the Wikipedia community over time. It would be a shame for these records to be deleted or to cease to be kept. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose – This would cost far more time than what the benefits are worth. Most jokes don't harm the encyclopedia if they are just left alone. Mz7 (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose, oboviusly WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Joke AfD discussions are generally for articles we are unlikely to ever wan to delete. On the outside chance we'rte wrong about it, we can certainly ignore the joke nomination when handling the real one. And while BLP is a potential issue with AfD discussions, we should handle that by dealing with the BLP problem, not by dealing with all AfD discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let people show their true colours (by StillWaitingForConnection)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The only thing that really matters is that BLP is upheld regardless of the date. Arbcom have already done that. So I say use April Fools as an opportunity for those who just want to have a laugh to do so, and for those with an agenda to do something they can't resist.

If one of the most prolific and conscientious editors at CfD decides to nominate Category:Earth for deletion because it doesn't have the requisite 42 pages, that's probably a lame, out-of-character joke. If one of the most prolific and vocal editors on either side of the Crimea dispute decides to nominate their least favourite of Category:Russia or Category:Ukraine for deletion because the contents are inaccurate, that's probably evidence that they will use whatever opportunities are open to them to further their POV.

So what I'm saying is, let slide things we would not normally allow to slide on other days of the year, at the time of occurance. However, allow abuse of the privilege to be treated as evidence of bad faith, if it forms part of a pattern of behavior before and after. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Agreed. We don't need to do anything besides keep track of BLP's, that's really the only issue. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Blatant violation of WP:5P. ansh666 04:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

   How so? We assume good faith unless we have evidence to the contrary. All I'm saying is that we treat evidence to the contrary as evidence to the contrary, be that on April 1st or another day. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

   First pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Need I go on? ansh666 05:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

   I truly do not understand your point w.r.t. the first pillar. You need to learn to communicate constructively, rather than be snippy about anything that doesn't take your interest. Further guidance can be found at WP:5P4. The users below opposed this proposal perfectly well without feeling the need to insult my intelligence or presume telepathy. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

   I can't even fathom how you think this is a good idea. By letting people do whatever they want, we'd be turning Wikipedia into the complete opposite of what we strive to be - it could very well become a battleground between different ideological or nationalistic factions, adding blatant falsehoods about both the other's positions and the editors themselves, all because "haha April Fools' Day". This would be in violation of three of the five pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written in a neutral point of view, where editors treat each other with respect and civility. By letting this happen to the encyclopedia, even for a single day, we could permanently damage its reputation and sow massive discord in the editorbase. Let's not forget what the primary goal of Wikipedia is. ansh666 23:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I see no actual point to this........ –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose. While the idea of leniency on this particular date seems like a good idea in theory, it will turn Wikipedia into a madhouse; we'll have basically every article someone has an opinion on (Israel, United States, Russia...) either up for deletion or at the center of some sort of POV-fueled debate. As for "assuming good faith unless we have evidence to the contrary", wouldn't doing something of this nature at all show that someone does not have good faith? And after everyone goes crazy on April 1, we'll still have to deal with the fallout on April 2; two editors who get into conflict as a result of one of these "jokes" ("You nominated my country for deletion?!" "Well, your country is stupid, so yeah.") will most likely seek retribution later on. Denying them a chance to take it to ANI or Arbcom may lead them to take matters into their own hands, most likely in the form of harassment, vandalism, edit warring, and other problems that this RfC is supposed to address, not cause. Ultimately, this proposal seems to create too many opportunities for problems to fulfill its purpose of having fewer problems. Sorry, but it's not going to work. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose This proposal would justify importing ideological battles into Wikipedia under the guise of humor. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose-ish. "The only thing that really matters is that BLP is upheld regardless" is a false premise. But what is "proposed" here isn't really a proposal, it's just what will happen anyway under any system of jokes being permitted. If someone is a big flaming WP:DICK every time such an opportunity arises, the community will notice that. No one going to let slide something like, say, a misogynist rant "joke" page on 1 April, especially if the editor has a history of sexism complaints against them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April Fools sitenotice for logged in users (by Rhododendrites)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For one day, on April Fool's Day, we display a sitenotice informing users that they can expect jokes on parts of the site other than the mainspace (we can work out the wording of that notice later, I think).

We could furthermore set a blank anonnotice, which would make the sitenotice appear only to logged in users. Other than the main page, it would be uncommon for a user who is not logged in to spend time in projectspace, templatespace, etc.

Support

1. Support as proposer. For users whose first language isn't English, who live in countries that don't celebrate April Fools, for those cases when the joke is simply unclear, and for other reasons it makes sense to communicate what's happening in some way. It's proposed above to add {{humor}} to clearly mark jokes, but it was pointed out that doing so ruins the joke's effectiveness. With this method, all pages have the notification, so no joke is specifically highlighted. Users simply know to question things they see which don't seem quite right. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support because, as I said below in the general discussion section, "it permits some joking and doesn't require posting templates such as {{Humor}}, but still prevents new editors and readers from being misled by references to, say, the Supreme Cabal." Chickadee46 (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support It makes sense, will help editors, and it will not confuse people. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

   Semi-support, with the caveat that all jokes continue to be tagged regardless. Let's not give people excuses. ansh666 00:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) On second thought, going to go neutral on this. ansh666 21:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

4. Support with the caveat that we also make it clear to users that policy still applies re:BLP, good-behaviour, etc. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - Anyone who A) doesn't speak English and B) doesn't celebrate (or even know) April Fools would have no idea what the hell's going on, so we should have some sort of message. –Davey2010^Talk 21:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Support: This is a very good idea regardless of other proposals, because a) 1 April isn't special to everyone competent enough in English to read en.wiki; it's a Western cultural tradition that will be obscure or unknown to many; and b) no even all Westerners pay close attention to the calendar and think about this. I personal notice that it's 1 April and remember that this is April Fool's Day only about every fourth or fifth year.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: a broad site-wide notice won't really help those who lack context to identify a joke or attempted joke. The current practice of targeted notices better addresses this issue. isaacl (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

   I don't follow. If every page tells someone "be on the lookout for jokes", that gives them a reason to take pause when they see something that doesn't look right, and they will be more skeptical of everything they see. It's not fool proof, of course, but this also doesn't preclude other measures/proposals above. If you think there should be a sitenotice and jokes should be tagged with {{humor}} you can support both proposals. It seems to me if you want to give people context, making sure they know what to expect throughout the site is an effective start. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

   It is already current practice to tag individual jokes. Given this, a site-wide notice is redundant. isaacl (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

2. Urgh, no, gives more attention to it than it deserves; and should "not show up in encyclopedia articles": for mainspace this should be a day like any other, I would find such notice annoying, including clicking it away. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - gives much too much prominence to this - and risks encouraging more disruptive silliness. DexDor ^(talk) 06:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I dislike the event enough, and don't need to be reminded of it. Banedon (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I think this draws far too much attention to the jokes than is needed. I think the current practice of tagging the jokes works fine. With regards to "spoiling" to joke, there are a number of more discreet templates that one would eventually notice, but not at first glance, such as {{April fools}}. Mz7 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose as per WP:BEANS. This would almost certainly just spawn more jokes, some of which would be disruptive. ~ Rob^Talk 19:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Beans-y and overkill. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

@Banedon: If you don't like April Fools day, then don't go on Wikipedia on April Fools. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Always an alternative, but one I'd rather not use. Banedon (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The "if you don't like it, leave" [for a day] argument is not a good one for a collaborative project, especially when talking about something which has no function in terms of building an encyclopedia and is only supposed to foster community. We're here because people's opinions vary significantly on the issue. Many of us, myself included, have abstained from Wikipedia (or tried anyway) on 4/1, but we're here to determine the extent to which people have a problem with different aspects. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: note current practice is to have a message on the specific page where the joke is present. isaacl (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Exclude the Help namespace from April Fools (by Rhododendrites)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The help namespace is primarily used by new users/readers. It is where people turn for basic information about the site/project and how to use it. It must communicate that information effectively to people who are not native English speakers or who are not from countries that celebrate April Fools. People turn to the Help namespace when they are most confused, most frustrated, and most clueless. It should be excluded from April Fools jokes, which can compromise this vital communication.

Support

1. Support as proposer. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Makes sense, we don't want to confuse the new users. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support. We don't need anyone getting any false ideas because they read something on a help page which turned out to be just a joke. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Support per ThePlatypusofDoom; new users won't be familiar with the Wikipedia community's April Fools Day jokes. Chickadee46 (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Should be obvious. ansh666 00:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Support per all above. Project and User space are far better suited for humor. Mz7 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Support, We don't want to confuse the newbies here. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Support. These pages are too critical to allow them to be disrupted for that time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Support Disruption to these areas would confuse newbies, while not being seen by most of the established users who might find it funny. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Strong support – I don't think any pages used by readers or new editors should ever have incorrect or confusing information. KSFT^C 13:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
11. Support - Help stuff should never ever be touched and if they are then that person deserves indeffing!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
12. As noted above, I support this and also extending it to cover other reader-facing namespaces including Portal and File, and conditionally (where they intersect with Mainspace, Portal or File content) both Category and Template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Support. Yes, this is a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unified proposal (by Francis)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(§1)

Off-limits for April Fools' banter:

• Anything that shows up in article space, apart from Main Page on April Fools' Day
• Help namespace
• Anything that scares away bona fide editing
• Anything that requires a disproportionate effort to clean up.

(§2)

Apart from Main Page on April Fools' Day, April Fools' jollity should be marked as such, e.g. using templates such as {{Humor}}, {{April fools}} or {{4-1}}.

(§3)

No guidance, including policies and guidelines, is suspended on April Fools' Day, e.g. a joke should never be a personal attack or a WP:BLP infringement. Other examples: the day is not an excuse to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, nor will edit warring be treated less severely on that day.

(§4)

Editors regularly managing processes such as XfD pages can decide autonomously on how to deal with a large influx of joke material on April Fools' Day, e.g. section off joke listings, suspend tedious XfD's, or whatever seems most appropriate.

(§5)

For other established practices see Wikipedia:April Fools and Wikipedia:Rules for Fools.

Support (unified proposal)

1. Support §1–5, as proposer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support in theory as a summary of most of what I like in the above proposals. I think the complaints below are overly harsh. It's not that uncommon to read through a long pile of proposal that aren't really building much steam, and try to extract from them the points most likely to gain consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (unified proposal)

1. On principle. Let the other proposals stand as they are individually, no need to make one separate big one. ansh666 06:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Ansh666. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose Besides the above, this is counterproductive - I oppose section 3 (I'm pretty sure the moment it starts getting enforced is also the moment it gets overturned), so I need to oppose the whole thing now? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Ansh666. Mz7 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose - let each proposal stand or fall on its own merits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Why merge all in to one whole proposal ? .... That's just stupid, let the individual ones stand. –Davey2010^Talk 21:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion (unified proposal)

Attempt to group what seems most likely to pass from the above in a unified proposal. Division in paragraphs allows to differentiate in the !votes. No prejudice where this should be inserted if passing, but unless another idea pops up, I suppose a previous suggestion to include it in WP:DE would be OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revoke the Main Page's exemption from the restriction on articlespace jokes (by Rhododendrites)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Throughout discussions on this page it's taken more or less for granted that articlespace is off-limits, but that the Main Page is not. This proposal is to end that exemption such that the main page would not be a venue for April Fools jokes.

Support

1. Strong support Readers and new users are very likely to see the main page, and I don't think it would make a good impression on them for it to have information that's false. KSFT^C 13:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The ban on mainspace is to prevent hoaxes and the like from appearing and misleading readers (which some newspapers do). The stuff on the Main Page still has to go through the normal vetting processes; it's just presented in a slightly more unusual manner. Like the TFA proposal above, I'd suggest that letting the folks who maintain those processes (WP:TFA, WP:POTD, WP:TFL, WP:OTD, WP:DYK) decide what to do with them is best. ansh666 18:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose The featured articles, pictures and lists that have occurred on April Fool's Day in recent years haven't even been pranks per say, but rather by-the-books sections on absurd topics. As for On This Day and DYK, the sections have been so out there that I find it impossible that a reasonable person could take them for face value even if that person did not know what April Fools Day was (and I find the odds of this happening to be quite remote). I'm honestly fine letting the individual page sections decide for themselves what to do for April Fools Day, whether that be performing actual pranks, displaying serious sections about absurd topics, or not participating at all (as In The News has chosen to do). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose It's in the spirit of April Fool's day, and Spirit of Eagle makes some good points. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
4. String oppose - I like the idea of a main page full of what looks like hoaxes. Of course, all statements on the main page on April 1 must be factually correct, and links in the statements should be enough for the average English speaker to figure out what it really means. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

   Sounds like maybe that should be a rope oppose.  ;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

5. Oppose on not-broke-don't-fix-it grounds. The main page on 1 Aprile isn't actually used for hoaxes, just for absurdities, and that's perfectly fine.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose as at present there are not to be hoaxes on the main page, everything is actually quite thoroughly vetted. Humor is fine. Montanabw^(talk) 04:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment by proposer - On one hand, it seems counter-intuitive that the community would deem articlespace to be off-limits but exempt the one page in articlespace with the highest traffic. On the other, main page jokes have a long tradition (upheld in multiple threads over the years) as a focal point of the community's April Fools' Day activities. To be honest, I'm reluctant to support this despite proposing it. It just seems like it would be a shame not to include this proposal while we're discussing so many different aspects of April Fools' Day on Wikipedia. At the very least, it will take advantage of the participation on this page to reaffirm that the community still wishes to exempt the Main Page (i.e. this is what I expect will happen). So, mostly, I'm adding this because I'm surprised it wasn't added right in the beginning. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• @ThePlatypusofDoom: Giving the main page a little more freedom doesn't seem like you support, as this would disallow jokes on the main page, not allow more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• @Rhododendrites:I meant "giving the main page more freedom for jokes". I don't see how you interpreted my comment like that, but I could be missing something. Thanks, ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• @Rhododendrites: Misread the proposal, thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@KSFT: None of the information on the Main Page is false - it's just presented in an unusual manner, see for example Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/2013 (2). ansh666 18:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All jokes must be based on inanimate objects and be brief – (by Checkingfax)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No more April Fool's jokes about animals or living things. Period. All jokes must not run on and on and on and on, like I just did.

Support

1. Support just because this is obviously a joke.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support because it's got a good beat and you can dance to it. Jonathunder (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. WTF ansh666 01:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
2. If we're going to have any jokes at all, I'll be damned if I'm going to support censoring those funniest of joke topics: weevils, lichens, and carps. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

   It's weasels, dammit! Reliable source: [2].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose Why? Banning animal related pranks just seems incredibly arbitrary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Why not animals? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose Seriously? Is this meant to be a joke, or what? I'm a living thing, and you can make a joke about me (provided that it isn't insulting) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose. The various inanimate objects around my house object to this discriminatory proposal. They simply cannot understand why those fancy living things are exempt from such jokes while they aren't. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advice for Fools (by Alanscottwalker)

Add to WP:Rules for Fools:

As Eleanor Roosevelt famously said (NO she did not!), 'great jokes discuss ideas; average jokes discuss events; small jokes discuss people.' Don't be small minded. Be like Eleanor.

Discussion

That's not really a proposal about what to do about 04-01 jokes; it's just a copyediting suggestion for the rules for fools page; WP:BEBOLD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not aim to be more Catholic than the Pope (by Count Iblis)

While we should consider the possibility of unintended consequences due to April 1 jokes and take measures to prevent such problems, to impose a ban on April 1 jokes just because we're supposed to be such a perfect, spotless encyclopedia, is just over the top. Count Iblis (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

General discussion

Note: The "not this again" thread was moved to the talk page. Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboards

This year, an apparently old arbitration clarification request was added to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment page. An editor made a comment which was revoked shortly afterwards. I'm not clear on where the humour lay; if it were a gag request or one with some odd twist it would have been more interesting. Nonetheless, given the community's tolerance of any edit claiming to be an April Fools' prank, combined with how only clerks are supposed to edit comments by others on the requests page, I felt constrained in what could be done to avoid stirring up old issues again, and to keep editors from spending time on old threads (it's really easy to miss the timestamps and think a new dispute has arisen). I appreciate that an ingeniously written fake request could provide levity, but given that humour is subjective matter, I feel that it would be better to keep jokes away from the various administrative noticeboards. There's lots of other pages that can be targeted for amusement. isaacl (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Site-wide notice

So we have many readers/editors whose first language is not English. We have many readers/editors who live in countries that do not celebrate April Fools. We have many readers/editors whose first language is English and who live in countries that do celebrate April Fools, but who nonetheless do not get all of the jokes attempted by others. These premises are, of course, relevant to this whole RfC, but I wonder if some similarly broad measure is the best way forward, rather than increasing levels of specificity: a site-wide notice or otherwise a banner not just on joke pages but ubiquitous so that jokes don't have to be "ruined" individually with a humor tag, but making everyone think twice before buying into what they see. If jokes are banned from the main space except for the main page, a clear indication on the main page is of course necessary, but maybe it would also be appropriate to show a notice to logged in users (who, I imagine, constitute the vast majority of people looking at pages outside of articlespace and Help (which, by the way, should also be excluded). I haven't participated at many of these past discussions, so it's possible this has been extensively discussed in the past. Thought I'd ask here under discussion rather than potentially waste everyone's time with a proposal for now :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: That's a really good idea. You should make a proposal for that. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I agree with ThePlatypusofDoom. I also like the idea of excluding Help pages. That proposal would probably gain consensus, because it permits some joking and doesn't require posting templates such as {{Humor}}, but still prevents new editors and readers from being misled by references to, say, the Supreme Cabal. Chickadee46 (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom and Chickadee46:  Done Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)