Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rules for Fools page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:FOOLS

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Department of Fun Bottom‑importance 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 Bottom This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (see above section) was not the only article to be hit by a lot of vandalism this April Fools' Day, so was the joke AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet of the Apes. In the past, it was the main Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2019/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020 articles that were vandalized. This community has shown that it cannot behave properly during April Fools' Day without doing some kind of disruptive behavior or other. Therefore, I would propose to ban vandalism on any Wikipedia namespace article on April Fools' Day, and those who engage in such behavior be treated as they would if they were editing anywhere else on Wikipedia such as in article space, with warnings or bans if necessary. B2TF (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There we’re a few joke edits on a single joke AfD. I think this proposal is way too broad and that it’s a bit silly to offer such strict protection to joke AfDs and other April Fools prank. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Banning such vandalism is unfair and unfunny to all wikipedians, especially the ones who came on the day of jokes and pranks. How about banning vandalism that is not cannon to a article instead? Disoneiscool8745 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No evidence that this is a problem in need of addressing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (not needed) Based on the reasoning of this RfC, there are written policies already put in place against acts of vandalism on any page regardless of namespace. It's like trying to ban such acts that were already banned. AlphaBeta135(talk) 12:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the joke Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship so far have been nominations of known trolls and vandals such as User:Bloomfield and User:Willy on Wheels~enwiki (vandalism on the German Wikipedia got Willy on Wheels banned). This is counterproductive to Wikipedia as it only encourages such people to continue with their disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. Thus, both joke Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and joke Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship should be banned on April Fools' Day. B2TF (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose we've had lots of joke RfA/B's that are not of trolls and vandals, such as AssumeGoodSecurity, 2022 FIFA World Cup, MediaWiki message delivery, MediaWiki default, Xaosflux (was already a bureaucrat), ZLEA, DeprecatedFixerBot, Linguist111 (testing), SineBot, the Easter Bunny, Moses, Cluebot NG, the article for Earth, and SuggestBot within the last four years. I don't see why there needs to be a full ban on them. 💜  melecie  talk - 10:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Melecie. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Opps, sorry a lot to become today's conflict starting point of my rfa to WOW.

In short, jokes are just for humour, don't take them so serious. Pavlov2 (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support keeping 1A out of project space entirely, and confining it to User space. Also Support B2TF signing on under their original account per WP:NOSHIT. SN54129 10:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Lizards per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decidedly undecided per being undecided, but at the same time being undecided about being undecided, although I'm also undecided about being undecided about being undecided. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible support and extend it to overdone AFD nominations too. These aren't funny jokes, they're tired, obnoxious and disruptive. Wikipedia is a global site, encompassing lots of cultures and April Fool's day is very much a "western" thing not to mention half the readers and users are in different time zones where it's well past April 1 and probably confusing. Moreover, nominating BANNED editors for joke RFAs is the opposite of WP:DENY and WP:DFTT regardless of whether they are active or not. Tl;dr 4/1 is always an obnoxious time on WP and needs to end now. CUPIDICAE💕 12:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Praxidicae. Having over 30 "joke" deletion discussions is way too much. We are here to build an encyclopedia, keep these jokes on the social networks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is the same thing every April 1st where 99% of the jokes are not disruptive to anyone while that 1% is the reason why April Fools Day must end forever on Wikipedia. There doesn't need to be a full ban on them and would agree on placing a ban on on making request for banned or blocked users. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A new editor has no business expressing an opinion concerning community culture which does not concern them. (If you are a clean start, try keeping your effort to writing the encyclopedia first, as drama is probably what got you in trouble the first time.) Also, what sort of culture will editors have when you eliminate traditions like this? Chris Troutman (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No evidence that joke RfAs are a problem. If you want to start a separate discussion to ban joke XfDs, I would support it (and I did two years ago), but it's inappropriate to make that case by hijacking this discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, but not encourage LTAs. Thingofme (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - in general a waste of time and energy. firefly ( t · c ) 14:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree that this has gone out of hand, but no need to just try to shut it all down because of a few people causing a ruckus. Shutting down the whole thing will do nothing good and just makes no sense as it basically just restricts everything because of a few disrupters. Cutlass^Ciera 15:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Thingofme. MJL_Master 15:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close I feel like this RfC is completely unneeded. The rules for fools makes it clear to use common sense and to not cause problems to mainstream Wikipedia processes on April fools day. This is akin to having an RfC to ban vandalism or an RfC to ban copyright violations. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 15:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The offending RfAs have already been removed from the April Fools' page, and the rest of the joke RfAs are harmless enough. 96.63.208.28 (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Willy on Wheels RFAs have a pretty long history, so that wouldn't be an example of something recent or pushing the envelope here. –JJP ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, however, I feel that joke RfA/B's relating to users who have been banned, should be disallowed (Unless the account that is the subject of the RfA/B is a doppelganger account of the user making the joke RfA/B that is owned by them and wasn't originally made by someone trying to impersonate them, as I don't think that would be feeding the trolls) since it's just giving them attention they shouldn't get. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I can understand the concerns regarding nominations of Wikipedia's prolific trolls (e.g. User:Willy on Wheels~enwiki); these "joke" requests should be deleted. However, not all joke requests are that inappropriate (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Panini!); in fact, banning future requests regardless of their appropriateness is too overreaching. --AlphaBeta135 talk 01:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, this discussion is open for two months that even my signature changed. Anyway, making jokes about prolific vandals might raise red flags to some concerned admins. Some of the admins who might not understand much of the nature of April Fools would probably use these select requests like WoW to justify calling for this very RfC. This last part is of concern because it would not only disincentivize people from making joke RfAs and RfBs (due to a lack of supply of RfA/B jokes to poke fun of), but also outright banning them without considerations of actually clean jokes. AlphaBeta135(talk) 00:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Same above. 205.155.225.253 (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general I support keeping the joke XfDs around, but I don't think they should be put in the official XfD pages, like Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Wikipedia already has precedent with putting jokes into the subpage of the yearly April Fools' Day page: since jokes are banned on article talk pages in 2020, joke requested moves have been done in subpages of the main yearly April Fools' Day page, see Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021/Requested_moves/Recursion and Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022/Requested moves/Milton Keynes Dons F.C. for examples from last year and this year. It is about time the same is done for the rest of the joke XfDs. The actual XfD pages should only be used for serious nominations. 96.63.208.28 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably consider just stopping the individual subpage thing altogether. I don't see why every joke needs its own subpage when we could easily just do it on a single page like RFD. –JJP ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • having one page that is edited and added to a lot would most definitely not be pretty and more probably end up as a mess, especially if we're getting 100+ afds. I think keeping each in their own subpage at least would be neater. and besides, AfD puts its nominations in individual subpages and that gets less traffic than april fools' nominations in april fools. 💜  melecie  talk - 09:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A serious oppose because jokes are clearly demarcated with humour templates, and if the same joke AfD (for example) is made twice, it can be easily differentiated with "2nd nomination" at the end of the AfD page. Keeping this year's status quo integrates jokes in the same interface as serious XfDs, but still able to clearly differentiate between jokes and serious nominations. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since jocular entries have their own templates and sections. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:AFDAY and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 18#Wikipedia:AFDAY until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:0104 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Wikipedia:0104 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recently an undiscussed page move to Wikipedia:Rules for April Fools was carried out.

I don't have strong feelings about the title, but I do think it's had the concise rhyming title "Rules for Fools" for a long time, so I reverted the recent page move attempt. Discussion on re-titling, if necessary, can commence. Retro (talk | contribs) 04:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]