This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun
RealSanix, My reading of WP:AF3 indicates that there is no specific ban on pages entirely devoted to pranking. In fact, there is clear precedent for creating pages whose sole purpose is to be April Fools' pranks — joke RfAs would be an example of this that was specifically permitted by AF3. I am intrigued by your idea on the grounds that it might decrease the odds of actually-important pages or the main WP:APRIL2021 page being vandalized. However, much of what happened last year would be against the spirit of the rules for fools even if done on a page other than WP:APRIL2021. The rules say in part that "Wikipedia policies and guidelines still apply on April Fools' Day", and that includes those relating to edit warring and non-free content. I think if someone were to create such a page and it ended up devolving into something like that again, the most likely outcome would be 1) protection of the page, 2) deletion, and 3) further restrictions on April Fools' pranks on Wikipedia. And who wants that? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Users with low edit counts or high inactivity, in my opinion, are not encouraged to participate, namely as April Fools does have a maintenance cost, and users should pull their own weight. Beyond that, just read the rules. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 01:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, the place to propose a merge is on the article talk page. However, article talk pages remain highly visible until archived, even to readers in some cases, and the April Fools proposal will look like a ridiculous proposal, being surrounded by non-April Fools discussion. Is there any better place to put a merge request? HotdogPi00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, why on gods green Earth can we not have a CIVIL and FRIENDLY edit war over the tittle “other pranks.” It was like majority of the spirit of April Fools here for a lot of us. Its just a subtitle for gods sake... JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. We need to have a large scale consensus regarding “Other Pranks.” I found the RfC, it wasnt archived I had to go through 7 links to find it. The “clear consensus” was from 12 people. 12 people striped all the fun from April fools. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a serious answer to your question, the entire April Fools Day page was over taken by spam which included copyrighted images. Edits were coming in so rapidly it was impossible to actually remove anything or find out who was violating copyright law. The entire thing was a colossus mess and we're quite frankly lucky it mostly stayed contained on the April Fools Day page. On the plus side, we've had a lot more creative pranks than usual this year. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021 (3)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is a clear need for a large scale vote on wether or not edit wars conducted in good taste on April fools pages, mainly the “other pranks” section, should be allowed. One vote in a non archived RfC of the 12 most staunch anti-vandals simply should not count. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
first major rule should read "Jokes and edit warring are prohibited on this page. This means there will not be a Great Edit War III." instead of "Jokes and edit warring are on this page. This means there will be III." Triky2Talk15:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What will the winner get? During the previous great edit wars, the winner got to name the section but I'm unsure if that will be possible here. As for when to conclude, I'd reccomend 7 AM UTC (aka midnight in California and the West Coast of the United States). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe close it at that time on April 3rd, so people have more time to vote. Also you should probably turn off the ability to submit multiple responses, because we don't want people to vote twice. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs)21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeromi Mikhael: Yes. There are 30 responses so far. Ever Given is in the lead with 7 votes, Glasses has 4, and there is a 3-way tie with 2 votes each between Mario, Moai, and Lepidammodytes macrophthalmus. I'll make a nice-looking graph with the results. I noticed there is now a banner on the main page telling people to vote. I think what I'm going to do is close the poll on April 2, 23:59 (UTC), just to give people enough time to notice the banner and vote. Unless you think voting should lat another day. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs17:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Diriector Doc: I'm the one who put up the banner. I know that this year's AFD is more organized than its predecessors, but I believe that we could organize it better. Probably prepare the form about 5 minutes before AFD is closed and put the link just before the event is finished. Or better, make a discord group for next years AFD so we could organize better. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael17:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I am in fact a frequent user of Discord, my strong preference is to keep Wikipedia-related discussion on-wiki, so that other people don’t have to create another account just to participate. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Jeromi on giving the vote a few more days. I really don't see the need to rush things and closing at the end of the week will allow more votes to come in. What ever time you decide on, I would recommend noting it in the banner so potential voters are aware of the deadline. By the way, an April FOols Discord would be cool. I actually had an idea about an April Fools' article contest where people would write or improve thematically appropriate articles and then vote on the best contribution to Wikipedia starting at the end of April Fools Day. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am going to close the voting booth on April 7 at 23:59 (UTC). That would have given everyone almost a week to vote. I think that's enough time. Right now, there are 44 votes, but a few of them are nonsense and won't be counted. I don't blame whoever wrote them though; it is in the April Fools' spirit after all. After I close the booth, I will make a clean graph showing the results. The graph that Google makes automatically is rather messy. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: I don't usually self-promote, but I made a YouTube video about April Fools' Day on Wikipedia. It's only three minutes and it mostly contains stuff you probably already know, but I'm proud of it. If you are interested, it's linked at the top of my userpage.
Lets face it, the joke AfD nomination has been played out. This year has seen record numbers of joke Articles for Deletion nominations. So far, we've had 125 jokes, and exactly 0 of them were funny. SAD! It's time to drop the stick and drop the ban hammer on these jokes.
Hey everyone. We have left than two minutes left in this holiday, but I wanted to thank you all for an incredible April Fools Day! I'll hopefully see you all in 2022! Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This year was quite fun (unlike 2020 where I was stuck doing janitor work). I should go fix my sig now, unfortunately, it was randomized for april fools.
I've compiled several ideas in relation to next years AFD.
Create RFC for a single AFD hook next year (proposed by Valereee and EEng; The C of E giving interest for this; relevant discussion could be seen here)
Prepare a proper poll for next year AFD (probably one or two months before AFD)
Expand the idea for an April Fools' article contest where people would write or improve thematically appropriate articles and then vote on the best contribution to Wikipedia starting at the end of April Fools Day (proposed by Spirit of Eagle)
I think based on the success of this year (all 16 DYK hooks made it to WP:DYKSTATS and we got several positive coments on social media), I would not support limiting it. I think the latter may work well for FA. But my view is really this is a simple WP:AINT here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)15:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. If we have enough DYK hooks to fill the whole section, we should use them. Would love to see social media links re: DYK as I tend not to mix my Wikipedia and social media activity. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really a fan of changing up the DYK per basically all of the reasons given by C of E. Getting a proper poll ahead of time would be a good idea. The idea of having one just sort of developed as AFD wore on, so there wasn't much time to plan one. Also, thanks to Diriector_Doc for creating the current Google doc. I'm looking forward to seeing the results. For my idea, I think it would be cool to allow people to spend March working on pages related to April Fools Day, humor, and the bizarre (broadly defined), allow them to start listing their contributions at the end of March (so voters have enough time to look over anything but not enough time for an early submitter to get a massive advantage), and then allow a vote in the same doc as the Article for Deletion prank. Voters would vote on both the quality of the improvement/new article, as well as how well the contributed article fits the theme. I'm hoping this will be a more constructive aspect of April Fools Day that will still fit with the fun, casual atmosphere of the main Pranks by Year page. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it time we grew up and stopped fooling around?
Wikipedia comes of age next year. We'll be 21. For 364 days of the year we decry people damaging Wikipedia content. Yet our corporate approach to encouraging or promoting April Fools Day pranks inevitably encourages many others to mess around with mainspace articles. Isn't it time we grew up and simply stopped encouraging this foolishness? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a recent changes patroller, and someone who has done cleanup/rules enforcement both this year and last year (what a pain), do I have any more say on this matter? Because my answer is "no". Wikipedia is not corporate, Wikipedia is run by human beings. And being human, an excuse to have some fun for one day a year is always appreciated. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 12:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our April Fools rules (which were posted in their entirety on the main page) strictly prohibit main-space edits and everyone who has thus far responded has assisted in regulating and cleaning up the festivities. We are productive editors having a bit of fun for a day, not vandals. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for running this poll; I'm very happy to see that my nomination of some random obscure fish got third place. You should create a sub-section in the AfD section so the results are more visible. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
