Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request for comment: Should this page be promoted to guideline status?

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.

---

Based on this previous April Fools' RFC, I have rewritten the Rules for Fools page with the goal of making it a guideline. Do you support or oppose promoting this page to guideline status? All users are welcome to comment. —DragonLord^{(talk/contribs)} 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as proposer. —DragonLord^{(talk/contribs)} 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I think that this is the only way to enforce the april fools RFC. nerdfighter 21:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support This seems to sum up the RFC pretty well and I agree that some sort of formal guideline should be in place. This is a lot easier of a place to refer people to than the RFC is. Zell Faze (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Instruction creep. Whether you find April Fools jokes generally harmless and occasionally funny (as I do) or reprehensible, it's hard to imagine that 24 hours of silliness once a year merit their own guideline. Genuine disruption (e.g., pranks in article space) can be dealt with perfectly well using existing policies and guidelines. The second bulleted point—the one about the tags—is especially absurd; the instant a prank is tagged, it no longer has the capacity for surprising or amusing anyone. (Maybe that's the idea behind the proposed wording.) Rivertorch (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Every time April Fools' comes around, some editors take it as an excuse to vandalize articles, and discussions inevitably come up as to what should or should not be allowed. As a follow-up to this earlier RFC, the goal of this proposal is to bring these discussions to a close with a definitive set of rules. In addition, consensus has been established on requiring jokes to be tagged, so your statement that tagging jokes is "absurd" would be against consensus. —DragonLord^{(talk/contribs)} 05:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   For one thing, I disagree with you that any such consensus was reached in that discussion (which I first learned of yesterday and which I don't believe had enough participation to reflect projectwide consensus). Secondly, the supposed consensus noted by the closer doesn't support your wording in the proposed guideline anyway. In any event, your example makes no sense. Vandalism to articles is dealt with very effectively by current policy, and no day-specific guideline will make it any more so. Rivertorch (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose for now as premature, until such time as the {{under construction}} has been removed. Write the page, then propose it. (As far as I'm concerned, this !vote will no longer be valid once the template is removed; feel free to indent it or something) --NYKevin 06:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Tag removed. It's probably mostly complete at this point, although some work may be needed. —DragonLord^{(talk/contribs)} 12:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

3. Oppose, I agree with the proposer that this is more or less in line with the RfC, but I don't support promotion to guideline. RfC closures are as binding as they need to be, and the closures are clear enough as case law. It is unlikely that a promoted guideline would prevent the horrors of untagged humor next April 1, since nobody reads the instructions, and WP:KUDZU applies. This is a narrow issue of limited harm. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose It's unnecessary to add such a minor issue to the list of guidelines. Keep it as an essay, with a link to the RFC. Any administrative action can reference the RFC for community consensus on this issue.
5. Oppose. No rationale given for creating such a guideline. The article content policies do not suddenly change on April 1, the rules are still the same. As for what happens on talk pages—who gives a shit. SpinningSpark 14:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. The wording is unnecessarily bloated, you only need one reminder that vandalism in mainspace will still be treated as vandalism. Also I disagree with "Any jokes (outside the Main Page) must be tagged using {{Humor}}, the inline template {{April fools}}, or similar templates". I would be OK with "After April Fools day, April Fools jokes outside of mainspace should be tagged using {{Humor}}, the inline template {{April fools}}, or similar templates. But providing it is short, ideally just "Keep it out of mainspace" then yes I agree we need a rule for Fools. If only so that newish members of the community know what they can and cannot do, the existing unwritten rule of Keep it out of mainspace works fine for long established editors, but having such rules unwritten contributes to cliqueiness. One of the best things about April Fools is that I get to interact with a different group of editors, some of them very new. Providing we can write up Keep it out of mainspace in five words or less then this can be an open part of the community rather than being some cliquey thing that newbies might feel excluded from ϢereSpielChequers 16:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   I have reworded the rules so that they are simpler and are to the point. —DragonLord^{talk/contribs} 06:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   One slight simplification moved it a little in the right direction, but other clarification edits have actually further bloated the page since I !voted. ϢereSpielChequers 01:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Is this page supposed to be a dummy target for April Fools jokes? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No. The page is simply meant to outline what should and should not be done on April Fools' Day. As it is intended to be the definitive set of rules for April Fools', it probably should be fully protected on that day, so that an editor can't game the system. —DragonLord^{talk/contribs} 07:15, 1 May 2013 (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.

Should we restart the RFC with all options? (Policy, guideline, essay, Information page, etc.)

Usually they go for 30 days and then someone comes and determines consensus. Just a thought. nerdfighter 23:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, start a different RfC if you want to do that. See my comment in the previous section. SpinningSpark 00:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think this RFC is a bit of overkill. The RFC above got a lot less participation than the first RFC, and this one on purely a procedural matter doesn't seem very likely to do much better. I suggest just having a discussion to hash out what seems reasonable as an introductory paragraph, whether or not it takes the form of a standard template. The end result will be the same regardless: a bunch of people agreed at one time on a certain set of advice, based on discussion, and this article summarizes the result. It is non-binding, but was based on due consideration by (compared to most discussions) a substantial number of people, and so is worth bearing in mind. isaacl (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Let it go. Nobody will want that. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 12:35, 14 May 2013 (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.

Failed proposal

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.

---

Although it is true this article did not succeed in being promoted to a guideline, it nonetheless reflects the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'. Thus I believe the banner added in in this edit is an unduly pessimistic summary of the state of the article. isaacl (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of a proposal is to determine consensus. This failed so it is not reasonable to claim it has wide consensus. The consensus pointed to is discussing joke pages, but this rule would require one editor who tells a joke on another editor's talk page to tag it, which I don't think was what was meant, or at least not considered. I could accept {{essay}} as a compromise though. SpinningSpark 10:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This proposal was meant to determine whether the page itself was to be promoted to guideline status, not whether the content was backed by consensus. While the proposal did not succeed, the content of the page is based on consensus reached at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools', as noted above, and so the page does describe consensus. —DragonLord^{talk/contribs} 11:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition, what you're referring to, the rule on tagging jokes, is only one part of the initial April Fools' RFC. The rest of the content in the Rules for Fools page definitely reflects consensus. There is, in fact, consensus on tagging jokes, given that a substantial majority responded "Support" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'#Require all jokes other than the main page to be tagged, and the linked proposal states: "All jokes, including XfD's, silly ANI threads, etc., would be permitted, but only with a {{humor}} or equivalent tag." It does not merely specify joke pages. —DragonLord^{talk/contribs} 12:11, 8 May 2013 (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.

Request for comment: Should Wikipedia:Rules for Fools be tagged as an information page?

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.

---

Should this page be marked as having consensus? SpinningSpark 16:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Support marking as having consensus

1. Support: The page content reflects consensus, even though the page itself is not a guideline. —DragonLord^{talk/contribs} 17:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support This clearly does have consensus per the big RFC that was actually a watchlist notice, and on the centralized discussion bulletin. I believe that it should be marked as a guideline, but for some reason that thread was closed 8 days early. nerdfighter 23:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support It is for all intents and purposes an information page like the template describes. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support it was widely discussed in the RfC, and really is a guideline, and not at all an essay -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose marking as having consensus

1. Oppose, it should be marked as an essay instead. SpinningSpark 14:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Any consensus it reflects is a local consensus resulting from a little-publicized discussion and is almost certainly not representative of general community consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

   really? you feel that an rfc such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/April_Fools is not widely advertised? it was even link from jimbo's talk page, which is a pretty public announcement, at least amongst editors. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

   Is it? I've been registered here for seven years and have never had Jimbo's talk page on my watchlist. With no slight intended to the habitués of that page, I plan to keep it that way. Make public ≠ publicize. Rivertorch (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

   as an RfC listed on the RfC, and on jimbo's page, it's about as well publicized as it can get without being posted in the universal watchlist notification, or on the main page... if this RfC is not well advertized, then what is the point of an RfC based guideline... I mean, seriously, most of the guidelinesd on wikipedia are based off of RfC's, which are not advertized with special effort. why should this be any different? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

   Oh, my goodness. Do you have any idea how many RfCs are opened and closed every day around here? One reason this should be different is that it's unprecedented, afaik, to attempt to add a guideline dealing with a long-controversial issue affecting a large number of Wikipedians without publicizing it widely. The RfC page (not to mention its various subpages) is continually full of RfCs, large and small, and no one can reasonably be expected to keep track of them all and do any productive work around here. Similarly, Jimbo's page is continually full of a large number of threads, many of them involving high drama, and no one should be expected to regularly sift through the chaff there to glean what's going on in the field of guideline proposals. (It's also worth adding that Mr. Wales, bless him, for all his near-deity status as founder and Foundation executive, is, in practical terms, on this wiki, just another editor—at most, the first among equals—and if I am supposed to monitor his talk page to keep up with important policy proposals, this is the first I've heard of it. Properly, an RfC of this sort should be advertised in three places: at least one of the Village Pumps, WP:CN, and via a watchlist notice. Anything less is unlikely to produce a meaningful sample of responses. Rivertorch (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

   wasn't suggesting that he was much more or less than other editors; I am also aware of the huge amounts of drama... however, the RfC publicity is enough. I also recall a noticea t village pump, but I don't think that most editors know how to post a watchlist notice... it's nopt at all unprecedented, the rules for fools existed long before this RfC, all we did this year was an attempt to reevaluate and codify based on this year's april fools events, which supposedly got out of hand... not at all unprecedented... there are plenty of guidelines out there, that, afaik, didn't have anything more than an RfC. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

3. Oppose, I believe it should be marked as an essay. I do not view the outcome of the discussions to have received an overwhelming consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose, mark as essay. There is insufficient support for anything else - and nothing else is needed. People refer to essays all the time. KillerChihuahua 15:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Wikipedia editors can reach a consensus on advice without it gaining the degree of consensus required to make the advice a formal guideline. Some of the opposes above were not contesting the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'; they just did not want to elevate the advice to the status of a guideline. I believe it is appropriate to mark this page as being a summary of the consensus advice from the aforementioned RFC. isaacl (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a remarkably leading question and ought to be re-phrased. Here's what I see:

• There was recently an eight-day-long (or, more precisely, an eight-day-short) RFC on whether to tag the page as an official {{guideline}}. It was closed early by the person who started the RFC as "no consensus". Fewer than 10 editors commented.
• The page was subsequently tagged as an {{information page}}, which is not a tag that declares something to be an official, community-approved guideline. It is officially the same category as a help page, a {{supplement}}, or an {{essay}}—the official category of "not a policy and not a guideline".
• An editor opens an RFC with a question that amounts to "Shall we pretend this page is an official guideline despite not being an official guideline?" and a confusing set of responses (Support what? Oppose what? Support tagging it? Oppose tagging it? Oppose tagging it as a guideline, but support tagging it as informational?).

I think that this RFC needs to be re-worded to provide a neutral question per WP:RFC. IMO a neutral question would look something like, "How shall we tag this page, assuming we should tag it at all? Some proposed options include {{information page}} and {{essay}}." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for closing the previous RFC too early. I felt that discussion had stalled and no consensus could be reached as a result. I have rewritten this RFC for neutrality. —DragonLord^{talk/contribs} 22:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In general it is a terrible idea to change the wording of an RfC after it has started and it would have at least been polite to consult me (and see the guideline at Suggestions for responding which does have consensus). The question this RfC is trying to ask is whether or not the page should be marked as having consensus. All this stuff about which is the right template to use is secondary, is simply confusing the issue, and will put editors off taking part. I have returned it to the original wording, minus any mention of it having been a failed proposal, which is probably the part which caused the comments about it being non-neutral. If you want to ask the community what template to use, start a different RfC, but it seems quite reasonable to me that if it ends "support" then {{information}} would be appropriate, otherwise {{essay}}. SpinningSpark 00:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Needs a bit more info if it's to become an info page. It's not clear if all jokes are to be taken down after April fools day or some may remain. Or if they can be AfD'd since I assume just admins can remove them. (Though anyone can redirect them here, another option that might be mentioned.) Perhaps others have other ideas of what needs clarifying. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since it has now been removed from the opening statement, I just want to restate that this was actually a failed proposal. I see no valid reason why {{failed}} was removed from the page. I request that the closer makes a clear statement on what templates are appropriate on this page as a result of this discussion. I am now making a request for a formal close. SpinningSpark 11:22, 8 June 2013 (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.

NOT april fools template

I know this is very very early, but I've created a "Not April fools" template for those who have serious proposals on that day. It's at User:Ansh666/Template:Not April fools (Side note, I need a better link for it). Does anyone think that would merit a mention on this page? Thanks, Ansh666 18:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates to automatically turn April Fools jokes on and off

The templates {{Is now}}, {{age switch}}, and {{alarm clock}} and other time-based templates can be useful to turn April Fools messages on and off at the stroke of midnight. Disclaimer: I wrote two of those templates and documented the third, so this is definitely shameless promotion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't you still have to purge the page at the right moment? Otherwise people will continue to see the last cached version. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the technical limitations of the time-based templates, especially for pages that don't get edited much. Perhaps by next year, we can have a template that does nothing more than put the page in a hidden category Category:Pages to be purged at midnight UTC April 1 and April 2 and have a bot do the purge. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Uw-aprfools templates

2 months ago I made {{User:ToonLucas22/templates/uw-aprfools}} for potentially disruptive April Fools jokes and {{User:ToonLucas22/templates/uw-aprfools-soft}} for less disruptive jokes. Shall these be mentioned on this Wikipedia page? --TL22 (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Should we delete joke AFDs left over from April Fools' Day?

I think we should as they don't really help the encyclopedia by continuing to exist. Thoughts? Jinkinson talk to me 12:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• No, don't delete. There may be useful information about the editorship underlying the jokes. But don't glamorise either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• If we started to delete things simply because some people thought they didn't directly help the pedia then we'd risk disappearing up our own insides in endless debates about particular wp and user pages and how they helped the pedia. Unless there is positive harm in having such pages around, the work in considering whether to delete them far outweighs any theoretical benefit of saved electrons in deleting them. In the case of these AFDs, keeping the old ones gives people pointers as to what is and is not acceptable on April Fools day, and hopefully prevents certain obvious ones becoming an annual event. At present people try to be original, delete the past ones and Earth will be fair game every year. ϢereSpielChequers 20:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• I think that whoever leaves a joke on April Fools' Day has (morally, and should have as a guideline) an obligation to make sure it is recognised as a joke by 2 April. I can imagine some joke proposals planted on 1 April being treated seriously after going unnoticed for days or weeks, especially if differences between time zones show the timestamp at 31 March or 2 April in other parts of the world from the original poster. Or is this the point of the {{April fools}} tag? —sroc 💬 13:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April Fools AFD pages.

I just wanted to make a quick observation: I was reading the Rules for Fools, and I think your participation in April Fools sitewide is bloody brilliant. However - and this is a big however - I note the piece about removing the "Remove this template when closing this AfD" from the AFD created and it putting the notice against the article, etc.

Can I honestly and in good faith ask; What is the point of putting an April Fools joke out there if it actually doesn't look genuine? Surely the idea is to actually fool people... Anyone??? CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 22:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@CharlieTheCabbie: This template is invisible on the AFD page, so the AFD page still looks "genuine". But the consensus is that the articles themselves should not be damaged. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@John of Reading: So you can make an AFD, but there mustn't actually be anything on the article indicating that it's being AFD'd? Or am I misunderstanding this entirely???? CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 11:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@CharlieTheCabbie: That's correct. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@John of Reading: In that case, with all due respect, how the hell does the April Fool work? Surely there must be some way of people being directed to the AFD discussion from the article, otherwise how would they know about the joke??? CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 15:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@CharlieTheCabbie: They are all listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1; someone has moved them all down to the bottom. Most were also advertised at Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2015. I am sure that all the editors interested in the "foolery" had that page watchlisted to keep track of the day's amusements. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Jokes Must Not Be Hateful

How about a rule that jokes must not be hateful and exclusionary? There was a problem with a transphobic joke this year, and I would not like to see it repeated.—chbarts (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, WP:CIVIL is a policy, and a part of one of the five pillars. It trumps everything a guideline or informative essay could say, therefore it's unnecessary instruction creep here. All annotations came with a reference to the RFC, this addition is the first without reference. Also see WP:KISS. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone watching this isn't aware...

There's an RfC on amending the April Fools' rules at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' 2‎. ansh666 19:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This should be made into a guideline

April fools has happened every year, and will continue to happen. I see from community consensus that rules have been put into place that should be enforced. I await any feedback here first before taking it to WP:PUMP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that we decided that raising it to guideline or policy was unnecessary - as an information page, it documents the collection of guidelines and policies that we enforce on that day. ansh666 19:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ansh666. What this information page does is document our consensuses from WP:AF2013 and WP:AF2016. We do now actually have a guideline at WP:DE#April Fools' Day that was put in place following discussion at WP:AF2016. Mz7 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Accidents will happen

Since accidents happen I think it would be better if people didn't nominate BLPs or Featured Articles for deletion. Siuenti (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Rename proposal

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 information page is misnamed. I get the clever rhyme thing, and I like it, I really do; it's doubleplusgood. Nevertheless, it just won't do. For one thing, "Rules" is such a harsh word; it utterly fails to capture the spirit of collegial camaraderie that has long been our project's most cherished hallmark. It might even scare off new contributors before they've had so much as a sip from their first cuppa or saved their first test edit in mainspace. As if that's not bad enough, "Fools" is clearly pejorative and constitutes a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. Even referring someone to this page could spark ANI threads, Arbcom cases, civility blocks, maybe even—in extreme cases—troutings. (Did your blood run cold when you read that? I know mine did.) Therefore, I propose we move this page to Wikipedia:Friendly Suggestions for Non-Humorless Wikipedians. As a sop to the noble soon-to-be-former page name, we can make WP:RFF redirect here. Currently, it redirects to Wikipedia:Article feedback, and who wants feedback? We didn't want it, and nobody wanted to give us any. Everybody hates feedback (except for guitar players). I'd be bold and do the move myself—who needs consensus for a proposal this good?—but my cursor morphs into a rude shape whenever I move it to the top of the screen. Besides, even though consensus is wildly overrated, not to mention unattainable in just under 98 percent of discussions, it will be so cool to see line after bulleted line of support !votes under my proposal. (Yes, I could have used WP:Requested moves, but who reads that page, anyway?)

• Support as proposer. (I would !vote twice because it's a really good proposal, but I wouldn't want to add to the widespread voter fraud afflicting—er—certain places that shall not be named. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• This isn't funny. ansh666 07:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support with all due haste I'm Mr. No Fun At All and would happily cancel these April 1st antics, but this guy gets it. If a joke makes me grin then you aren't half bad. You want support? Fine by me. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• oppose, for pete's sake, it is a little joke. a little, tiny one. don't take april foolery so seriously!  :) Jytdog (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Always rhyme when possible Siuenti (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are different ways to combat the problem (such as explaining the page using {{nutshell}}); plus, the title itself is supposed to be a joke, not an uncivil attempt at creating a title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToThAc (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 April 2017 (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.

Use of WP:Twinkle on April Fools' Day

It's been suggested at WP:AN that Twinkle not be used for nominating things for deletion as a joke, the main reason being that it automatically adds the AfD notice to the article, in violation of rule #1 (even if immediately removed, it's still in the mainspace history). Should this be added to the page in either the rules or notes section? ansh666 07:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It would certainly help. Twinkle wasn't designed for these non-serious deletion discussions and I think we can agree it blurs the line between real editing and joking. I'd say using Twinkle in this manner violates both the letter and spirit of the rules. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Support The article creators also don't need to get notifications of these lame jokes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: I don't think option 2 is a good approach to recommend. There isn't a need to optimize the process of creating a humour page, so automated tools aren't needed. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you here but we need a consensus to remove something like that. Option 2 has been the traditional way of doing AfD jokes, but I have seen since a new less disruptive way of doing things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No, they should not be performing step 1 at all, nor using tools that do so as mentioned in the AfD general instructions. I've reverted for now, since the instructions are confusiong in any case. Let's figure something out here first. ansh666 17:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Mz7 (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary rule on April Fools' (Joke edit summaries)

There may have been multiple incidents that patrollers misunderstood some user edit summaries in the mainspace and other namespaces that affect the mainspace, then interpreted as April Fools' joke edits and treated them as vandalism.

We need a rule for edit summaries on April Fools'. For example: "April Fools" as a greeting should not appear on any serious edit summary, like this revision in the template namespace (This joke edit summary was made to make fun of T-Series being surpassed by PewDiePie on April Fools'). —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't need a rule for that, per WP:CREEP. Common sense should be enough. ansh666 17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Bold edit

I made a bold edit that said to keep jokes out of policy pages. It has since been reverted. Should my edit be added back on? Invalid^OS (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I did propose this at the last RfC, but it was decided there that such an addition was unneeded. I wouldn't add it back without gaining consensus first. ansh666 23:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Added note about time of April Fools Day

I added a note explaining when April Fools Day starts and ends, and warned fools not to pull April Fools Day pranks when it is not in fact April Fools Day. This has been a minor problem in past April Fools Day celebrations, so I thought it appropriate to add this tip since it reflects long-standing community practices.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

But, April Fools Day happens in different times for people in different time zones. April fools day for you and me could be twelve hours different. The time is relative to location. Shrekxy64. 18:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The note addresses this. April Fools day goes by Coordinated Universal Time (aka Greenwich Mean time/ Wikipedia time/ the time listed after your signature). UTC is always the same regardless of location, so we won't have the issue of April Fools Day lasting longer than 24 hours. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Preventing April Fools 2020 from getting out of hand.

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:GAFDEW was fun and all, but I doubt it happening twice would be a good thing (Could result in sanctions or restrictions, as it wouldn't be unlikely for it to get way out of hand very quickly). Maybe a fixed name for that section should be decided? --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Paging @InvalidOS, Spirit of Eagle, 7 qz, and One Blue Hat: as major participants. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It was fun and all, but seeing as how quickly that spiraled out of hand, I think a fixed title would be a good idea. It was also quite distracting for me. April Fools' shouldn't go that far. I'd suggest "Miscellaneous Jokes" as a section title. (With a very noticeable notice from the cabal saying "DON'T EDIT WAR OVER THIS SECTION'S TITLE AGAIN OR FACE SEVERE PUNISHMENT AND POSSIBLE ERASURE FROM EXISTANCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.") Invalid^OS (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

InvalidOS, Waiting on input from the others I paged, but I will probably elevate this to a RfC. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Invalid^OS (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

_{Who dare summon me?} But seriously, I feel like there should be a rule during the event that each person can only edit the header once per hour. A Dolphin (squeek?)

Initial comments by Spirit of Eagle and responses to those comments

Was it really that bad? I remember some of the admins commenting that 2019 was pretty mild compared to past years, and I suspect the was because a lot of the chaos was concentrated on the Great Edit War. Yes, the 2019 page was pretty chaotic, but it was quite literally a page for documenting pranks played on the community; I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect protection from chaos on a page dedicated to stirring up chaos (especially when that chaos would have been directed against the wider community but for the Great Edit War). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Spirit of Eagle, I'm talking about some of the more unwelcome chaos that arose from it, like repeated page moves (resulting in the page having to be move protected) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC) I wasn’t actually aware of the page move issue. Let me get back to this after class. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Ok, here’s the diff for when the page was locked. In 2019, there was no foreknowledge of the edit war or oppertunity to plan, yet it still required administrative intervention; in 2020 there will have been a year of notice and I imagine the “Great Edit War II: the Electric SCPikachu” will kick off at full chaos at midnight if not earlier. We could try just banning page moves, but such a narrow approach completely underestimates the potential of a feedback loop of chaos. To be clear, I really enjoyed the edit war, but there is a massive risk of things getting completely out of control next year. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Spirit of Eagle, I liked the edit war as well, it was very much enjoyable, but you are correct, the chaos could very easily get out of control. A possible extreme solution would be to put sanctions on the page, like a 1 edit per 5 min per person limitation, or similar. But that'd be desirable only in a worst case scenario. (And this is why I brought this up) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC) At this point, my biggest concern is avoiding another general April Fools Day RFC: the celebration has survived two of them, I’m not sure if it can survive a third. Having a five minute cool-down will almost certainly interfere with “productive” editing on the page to document April Fools jokes. On the other hand, I am a bit worried about trying to lock the subsection title to prevent another edit war. There is a chance that this will cause all of the concentrated chaos from last year to dissipate. However, there is also a chance that a bunch of editors will come looking for a repeat of 2019 and try to create it elsewhere if they can’t do it in the misc. joke section title. If the latter happens, then he 2020 edit war will be a lot more outward facing than 2019 (which largely focused on pranking the pranksters, the page moves notwithstanding). I’m going to have to mull this one over. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Spirit of Eagle, There's also another thing to consider: It's possible another edit war may not happen at all. But that's highly unlikely. Judging by the edit history of the other two I paged, I probably won't see a response from them soon, so i'm going to elevate this to a RfC now that I got the input I was after. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The 2019 edit war got out of hand and required intervention by an admin; I predict 2020 will be even more chaotic. While I enjoy April Fools Day on Wikipedia, we do need to respect the rights of editors not to participate and avoid creating needless work for others. To this end, I believe it is appropriate to lock down the section title. Edit of Nov. 9: I'm honestly starting to waver a bit on restricting the section title. As Knowledgekid points out, most of the participants followed Rules for Fools and this is feeling more and more like punishing the many for the actions of the few. I support trying out less drastic measures (specifically the things I suggest in the paragraph below); move locking the page would prevent the bad stuff seen in 2019 while the clean-up day and notice would hammer in the need to respect the wider community. I understand that this position is riskier than just outright banning follow up edit-wars. However, at the end of the day I have faith in my fellow Wikipedians and firmly believe that we are capable of making good decisions even on our day of fun (particularly when provided with good information and a proper nudge or two). We can always revisit this if this faith turns out to be misplaced, but until then I am not prepared to outright ban the edit war.

I do have some other suggestions. First, we should probably prohibit moving the "Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 20XX" page since ever move creates a new page that has to be deleted by an admin. Second, we should place a notice at the top of the Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020 page explaining that the miscellaneous joke section is locked. The note should also advise editors to respect the rights of non-participants, avoid being a nuisance, and to clean up after themselves and others once April Fools Day is over. The third idea is one I have been toying with for some time: April Fools days celebrations are divisive, and it does cause annoyance to non-participants. To address this, we could make April 2nd a maintenance day: participants in the April 1st festivities are encouraged to fix spelling errors, add wikilinks to articles, add images, and do all of the other minor tasks needed to keep Wikipedia functional. The third suggestion won't prevent chaos, but it will build up some good will with the rest of the community. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Meh After thinking this over some more, I'm editing my comment some more. I do not support blocking future edit wars; things were relatively under control and I have no desire to restrict the many for the acts of the few. I do support locking down the page title. If we see an edit war over the page title like we saw over the section title, we would end up with dozens of redirects an admin would have to delete. It would also be incredibly difficult to find where exactly the April Fools Day page was located. Granted, I expect an admin would lock the page down before this becomes an issue, so perhaps this rule isn't even encessary. The one thing I do still strongly support is the APril 2nd CLean Up Day. Someone could basically create a page that direct editors to areas suffering from backlog and that also allows them to log their contributions in a causal setting. Basically, we could channel the fun of April Fools Day into something very productive. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nom and per above. I strongly agree with User:Spirit of Eagle's stance, especially on the idea that April 2nd could be made into a cleanup/makeup day. Could possibly call it "April Fixup", or similar. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Note: I posted a notice about this RFC at the Department of Fun talk page. All April Fools Day pages fall under this project, so I felt notice was appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  I also posted a notice to the talk page of WP:April Fools. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is making a mountain out of a molehill, one move protection AFTER April Fools day had ended hardly screams "out of hand". I think the move protection after the 2nd was actually to end the day (which should have happened before the 3rd). My recommendation is to lock the page after April Fools Day has ended (-12:00 UTC on April 2nd). I have no opinion on making a April 2nd a maintenance day for those who aren't interested in joking around. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to disclose... I am a proud participant of the great edit war of 2019. There were no issues of sanctions or blocks as the rules for fools were respected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Knowledgekid87, The move protection was applied on april fools day, not after. And it was done after several moves MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support proposal for move protection - this will make sure that the title is locked in as "Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 20XX". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Mu.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Lock the section name via page deletion. Most effective means to lock the name. Alsee (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• This doesn’t need an RfC. Don’t be an idiot. If you act like one, you’ll get blocked even on the worst wikiday of the year. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• Mildly Oppose I don't think that this was a problem. People were staying within the rules, nobody got hurt. I feel like this edit war was out of pure jest. It sort of went from "this is what this section title needs to be called," to "how many silly things can we name this section?" People were following all the rules for the most part, excluding the time someone blanked the entire page (I plead guilty). As long as there is cleanup and people don't absolute lose their minds, I'm fine with letting the Great April Fools Day Edit War of 2020. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how the server internals work. If a massive edit war would put too much strain on the technical side of things, then we probably should block or at least slow down the edits. One Blue Hat^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 20:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It's good fun. There's nothing wrong with editors doing this on April Fools. Although it should end at midnight on April Fools.HAL333 00:55, 6 December 2019 (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.

Post at AN

Liz mentioned that some people might not the thread I started, so notifying here as I think more people who care about this may see this on their watchlist :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"Rules for Fools" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rules for Fools. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020#Special CSD criteria for bad April Fools' humor (or humor in general)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020#Special CSD criteria for bad April Fools' humor (or humor in general). -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: Proposal has been withdrawn. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: April Fools' Day

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' 3

Talk page size was starting to get a little long (160+ KB) so I'm moving this to a separate page. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April Fools Day

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 a useless day, someone was nearly killed because of those kind of behaviours people put out there. I mean only fools does that. Samarium StyLes Govenor (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If you believe Wikipedia shouldn't celebrate April Fools' Day, feel free to express that opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' 3 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Think of the children! PackMecEng (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2020 (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.

RfC: Ban April Fools pranks on all talk pages

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 rules currently say that April Fools pranks are banned on mainspace and help talk pages, but do not mention anything about other talk pages, like userspace talk, wikipedia talk, template talk, category talk, file talk pages, and so on. I propose that the April Fools pranks ban be extended to all talk pages, for the same reason as was given in the discussion to ban pranks on mainspace and help talk pages. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose You're no fun. Benjamin (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Usertalk I would grant a gentle and limited nonobjection to pranks, at best. All other spaces, support. If you know someone well enough to prank them, and to even know if they like pranks, you know them outside of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia first and foremost. Congenial relations with your fellow editors is good; using Wikipedia as a playground is generally speaking, bad. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 16:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree with your claim that If you know someone well enough to prank them, and to even know if they like pranks, you know them outside of Wikipedia., but even if we granted that belief for the sake of your argument, it does not obviously follow that pranks perpetrated against editors that you also know outside of Wikipedia would need to be moved off-wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As the rules currently stand, if jokes are banned on a namespace then they are also banned on that namespace’s talk page (and vice versa). The proposed rule would ban jokes on the talk pages of namespaces where jokes are allowed. For example, under the rule I could upload a silly picture to file space but I would be punished if I made a silly comment on the talk page of that file. This is a bizarre and drastic rule that would cause a lot of confusion and require sanctions for harmless, time-honored April Fools traditions (such as funny user talk page messages). If you think April Fools Day is fundamentally harmful to Wikipedia and want to go nuclear on the festivities, then just ban the holiday; this halfway ban will cause far, far more problems than it resolves. (Full disclosure: I would oppose a total ban but think it would be preferable to the current proposal).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Spirit of Eagle. Hell, we post joke stuff even on policy talk pages from time to time, just to relieve tension. Wikipedia is a human project, not a Vulcan one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• I wonder what would be left, if this proposed rule were implemented. Joke AFD nominations and silly proposals on the Village pump pages, but surely we don't actually think a note on a friend's talk page has more potential for disruption than those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and trout nominator. Talk-page jokes are mostly harmless. Can’t think of any problems / disruptions we’ve had with them. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Close RfC without prejudice, and open it again on April 1 2021. This one really got me laughing. You can't be serious! Jokes are good. Jokes keep you healthy. jp×g 11:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As just not needed. PackMecEng (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (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.

RfC: Ban vandalizing the Wikipedia:Rules for Fools on April Fools' Day

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.

---

Now that people can no longer mess around with the main Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022, they are now vandalizing this article instead, such as by rotating or slanting the Wikipedia:Rules for Fools article by some random angle, making it really unreadable. I propose that vandalizing Wikipedia:Rules for Fools should be banned from the April Fools' Day activities, and that people engaging in such activity be treated as they would be if they were vandalizing in article space. Preventing vandalism on Wikipedia:Rules for Fools is extremely important for people to know what is and isn't allowed on Wikipedia on April Fools' Day. I don't really why people think that vandalism is okay on these pages, it's the same issue that caused the 1st and 2nd Great Edit Wars. B2TF (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2022 (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.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § RfC: Time to stop April Fools' Day joke edits on Wikipedia?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § RfC: Time to stop April Fools' Day joke edits on Wikipedia?. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § RfC: Joke XfDs during April Fools' Day

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § RfC: Joke XfDs during April Fools' Day. 96.63.208.24 (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Proposals for joke AfDs

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Proposals for joke AfDs. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's April Fool's Day?

Time for review I think.

For 2022, for example:

We have for Xi Jinping, and for Carrie Lam. Xi Jinping and Carrie Lam both being the subject of jokes related to human rights and/or denial of facts or events or their position to affect the outcome of such matters.

We have this and this for the war on Ukraine, expressing concern about Russia's response, Putin's response?

Why is it okay to make jokes about such for people with a Chinese heritage but not okay to make jokes about such for people with a Western heritage? All equally capable of causing and-or overseeing further suffering.

A fear of what the geopolitical bullies might do if something is said about their behaviour? If Wikipedia self suppresses information, then the bullies will have won the information war. Open, free, unfettered access to reliable information and ideas suppressed. This is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is about.

And for Cyclone Cody. I was not offended by this. I saw the humour in it, black comedy though it was. However, it did not make me happy. I was disappointed and saddened by it. Why is that one life less important, deserving of less respect, than any one of the thousands-plus lives lost in Russia's war on Ukraine or any one of the millions-plus lives lost to COVID-19?

And, the Xi Jinping and Carrie Lam jokes were not exactly NPOV.

There is also a one off other rule for COVID-19, due to its sensitivity. Sensitive to whom? The grief and loss felt by any one of the families affected by COVID-19 is no different from the grief and loss felt by any family that has been confronted with any major loss due to any other event. Also, it states that there is a precedent for deleting such material. It does not state that such material will be necessarily deleted. It does not state there is a [universal] ban on such material, as stated here for example.

Some of the jokes and pranks seem to be rather mundane, repetitative, and dare I saying boring. And, I suggest do not add any value, even by way of light relief, and do distract and divert attention unnecessarily. Sometimes though the same prank or joke in a different context can be funny again.

The current Rules for Fools allow all of the above. The inconsistencies in the above I suggest leave Wikipedia open to justifiable criticisms.

Society broadly, certainly in open democratic societies, allows, even encourages, the lampooning and satirisation of the behaviour of itself, organisations, governments, and leaders when they get it wrong. If Wikipedia is to reflect, but through its ideals, society, then it should not be excluded from opportunity to do so.

As far as I can see the Wikipedia community takes its responsibility for delivering accurate, complete, reliable information quite seriously. I think there is scope for one day per year for the community to let its hair down. However, it needs to do this in a consistent and respectful way, regardless of the scale of the subject and where the subject happens to relate to. It is also I suggest the only time that NPOV can be relaxed. Humour, by definition, often requires the contratorting of points of view, particularly so if lampooning or satire.

So I would like to suggest the following options:

0	Ban Wikipedia April Fool's Day.	This was being discussed at Time to stop April Fools' Day joke edits on Wikipedia?.
1	Add a rule 4: Any prank or joke reliant on any subject involving or affecting people, regardless of scale or location, is considered inappropriate and is universally banned. Add to other rules: If a particular prank or joke has been done before, do not do it again. Try to be original.	Remove the COVID-19 rule from other rules.
2	Add a rule 4: For a subject involving or affecting people, regardless of scale or location: Any prank or joke specifically reliant on deaths, injuries, or victims in general to make its point is considered inappropriate and is universally banned. A prank or joke reliant on societies', organisations', governments', or leaders', causation of, preparation for, or response to, an event or circumstance may well be, but not necessarily be, appropriate. Add to other rules: If a particular prank or joke has been done before, do not do it again. Try to be original.	Remove the COVID-19 rule from other rules.

My preferred option at this point is option 2. Rezur Ekt (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Before this goes to RFC, are there other options, do we need to pick up our game? We have 361 days left to come to a resolution. Rezur Ekt (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Both of your proposals for a "rule 4" seem to just repeat rule 3 in different words. Rather than a "rule" trying to "ban" things, how about an addition to the "advice" section noting that notes that jokes about harm to people etc are probably going to be considered not funny and may wind up falling afoul of rule 3? Anomie⚔ 16:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• This is not the correct forum to ban April Fools from Wikipedia (option zero). Most people do not read this page, it would not have sufficient participation here. -- GreenC 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Give it a rest. It's one day per year. Atsme 💬 📧 17:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Per my !vote at the previous RfC, I think our focus should be on ways to encourage/incentivize better April Fools jokes, rather than trying to heap on restrictions that will never be enough to totally prevent disruption (since the people who they'd target are the ones who won't read them). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Abstain, since the required and my preferred option ("do nothing") is not even present. Technical fail. Try again, preferably next year on April 1... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I would remove the line "If a particular prank or joke has been done before, do not do it again. Try to be original" because repeated deletion nominations have resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion x 8, for instance. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)