Wikipedia talk:April Fools

Proposal to split jokes DRVs into a single page

I propose that April Fools' Day joke DRV nominations from pages such as Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 1 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 1 be split into a separate page, potentially called Wikipedia:April Fools/Deletion review. Traditionally, there are few joke DRVs per year (or none for some years, like 2022), and combining them into a dedicated page would allow readers to access all of them at once. Also, this would separate joke and serious DRVs, bringing DRV in line with processes such as AfD, where joke and serious entries are separated. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If it keeps me from having to block anyone, I'm all for it. —Cryptic 01:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Cryptic I have created the page. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Scheduled serious actions on April Fools Day

Should we contain serious, planned actions for future April Fools Day? Thingofme (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to merge joke XFDs into organized pages

In the style of my AFDDRV proposal above, I propose merging all XfDs of one type (except AfD and MfD) from all years into a single page. For instance, TfDs from all the past years, such as those from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 1#April Fools' Day nominations, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#April Fools' Day nominations, and other years, can be merged into a single page titled Wikipedia:April Fools/Templates for discussion.

Since there are few joke TfDs, FfDs... per year, this decision would allow these pages to be streamlined and centralize, rather than having a litany of pages with few XfDs each. This would also allow complete separation of joke and serious XfDs, as is done for April Fools' AfDs. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

April Fools'

I just read every article in existence in regards to April Fools' but still can't understand what the rules are? Let me get this straight, no pranks on any visible page, no pranks on user pages, and no pranks anywhere else than your own user page? Am I getting this right? 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 21:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Ban joke AfD of living people

There are usually WP:BLP issues with joke AfD of living people, and usually those end up being deleted later, in WP:MfD. For example, this year, a user started a joke AfD for Kanye West, and then later the joke AfD was nominated for deletion here. There have been previous joke AfDs that have been deleted in the past, such as a joke AfD for Donald Trump, which resulted in a serious MfD here. Thus, I propose joke AfD of living people to be banned. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• How about instead of creating rules for each specific thing that we encounter that we shouldn't do we add common sense as a rule. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this needs a discussion, no less a RfC. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you look on the IP's talk page, you can see that the IP was warned for edit warring on a April Fools subpage. This RfC seems very pointy in my opinion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle: There is little guidance in policy and guideline about this April Fool's Day foolishness. There is an information page at WP:Rules for Fools, but this does not carry the weight of the community behind it. In Rules for Fools, "All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the "article", "help", "talk", and "help talk" namespaces." AfDs on living people certainly falls into this category, although by removing an element in nomination one can avoid linking the actual page. Yet there is debate as to whether these clearly and intentionally disruptive edits constitute misbehavior. I'd like to see more and firmer restrictions. BusterD (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's quite the stretch to get from "article", "help", "talk", and "help talk" namespaces to BLPs. Although the mainspace does cover BLPs, most BLP AfDs do not affect the article of the person themself. Not·Really·Soroka 05:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  the mainspace does cover BLPs The very first sentence of WP:BLP makes it explicitly clear that the BLP policy applies to all edits to all pages in all namespaces. If something would be a BLP vio in an article, it is not acceptable to repeat it on a project page. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  All AfDs affect the mainspace of their articles: a banner appears at the top of a page announcing it is being considered for deletion. This is no different from someone directly tagging the article (which would unambiguously be prohibited by RfF). JoelleJay (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Joke AfDs do not leave a banner on the articles, BLP or not, if done properly. See the first point of Wikipedia:Rules_for_Fools#Joke_deletion_nominations. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as a rule, people should be using common sense to know whether or not these are appropriate. If they fail to use common sense then they suffer the consequences. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support I saw two living people get accused of Nazism last April Fool's Day. I won't comment on whether I agree with the allegations, but this is serious. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: If joke AfDs on BLPs are banned, I'm sure anyone actually wishing to insult a BLP under the guise of April Fool's Day will do so. The Kanye West AfD? He was accused of what we cannot say, citing his own statements professing such. Or we can declare a permanent end to April Fool's Day on enwiki. Heavy Water (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support but I don't think this is really necessary. The WP:FOOLS rules make clear that jokes have to be in good taste. Jokes about BLPs aren't in good taste at all. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. As an April Fools participant who do write BLP AfDs, I believe we should consider the occasional bad BLP AfD or two as exceptions rather than the rule. Sorry for the self-promotion, but I think my Bobby Witt Jr. AfD Witt-ily (pun intended) referenced a BLP without insulting him, and many BLP AfDs are more like Witt than Trump. Not·Really·Soroka 05:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, would BLP-related jokes done outside of AfD, like this one by the appellant, need to be banned too? (My answer: No, common sense suffices) Not·Really·Soroka 05:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Fixed the diff. Not·Really·Soroka 05:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the wit in that nomination? I can't see anything clever there. The entire AFD seems to be little more than "this person has a funny haircut, point and laugh!". The entire "joke" just consists of mocking someone for their appearance. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I admit that humour is subjective and that the Witt AfD is not that funny to the extent of making everyone laugh. However, this does not mean that the joke should therefore be automatically worthy of deletion; someone out there could potentially find it funny. Not·Really·Soroka 04:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Was your takeaway from my comment "this should be deleted because it isn't funny"? The AFD being unfunny, crude humour that took 2 years to get 2 people to comment on isn't the problem. The issue I have with that AFD is that it consists entirely of mocking someone for their appearance, which I find to be distasteful and disrespectful. If that page was located anywhere else in the project it would have been G10'd as an attack page. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, and honestly I would support a complete ban on April fool's jokes involving/at the expense of living people. We should always aim to treat people we have articles on with respect, dignity and kindness, and follow the principle of "cause minimum harm" - this is the fundamental idea of the WP:BLP policy. April fools jokes involving BLP subjects have always seemed to be in poor taste to me, and have resulted in a number of problematic articles/edits in the past (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive326#Adolf Hitler Uunona for one example). There is a whole encyclopaedia of articles people can write unfunny joke AFD nominations for, avoiding living people seems like a sensible boundary. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that there exists "a whole encyclopaedia of articles people can write unfunny joke AFD nominations for" is the very reason why BLPs should not be singled out; vandals could also make tasteless comments on non-BLP subjects. For instance, a (hypothetical) radical pro-life person could easily AfD Abortion-rights movements, and the resulting AfD would probably be as tasteless as the Ye or Trump AfDs themselves, yet would be proverbially protected because it is not a BLP. This shows that it is not the subject of the AfD that matters or determine its offence or harm; only content matters. Not·Really·Soroka 04:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  That is an utterly stupid argument based entirely in whataboutism. I know you have WP:CIR issues, but come on. "A vandal could vandalise any article, so we should be able to make jokes about anything" is a ludicrous train of thought.

  We specifically afford BLP subjects extra protection in policy because the content we host on them has the potential to cause actual, real life harm. It has been shown over and over again that a significant number of people who get involved in April fools do not have the maturity/common sense to figure out what is and isn't appropriate. Some people (including you) apparently couldn't figure out that an AFD about killing trump or calling ye a nazi were grossly inappropriate. Given the history of problems and the potential for harm setting a firm boundary is a reasonable step. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  To quote your words at the Witt comment above: Was your takeaway from my comment "Ye and Trump are appropriate AfDs?" Because I never said it here or at Tony's talkpage. I don't know that the Trump AfD was so horribly written, and I cannot be expected to know that fact, because...

  1. I have not read the AfD before Tony deleted it.
  2. I am not an admin, and therefore cannot access the AfD after it was deleted.

  NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  @163.1.15.238. Tone it down please. Discuss, don't argue, and don't engage in ad hominem attacks. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, although I appreciate the thought behind the proposal. Bad joke noms can be dealt with as BLP violations, and/or deleted as attack pages. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support exactly per 163.1.15.238. I have never really understood how joke-nominating biographical articles for deletion doesn't violate the spirit of BLP. April Fools "jokes" are a privilege, not a right, and this seems like an eminently reasonable boundary to keep some "jokes" from turning harmful. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 13:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that it is already perfectly within policy for admins to delete BLP joke AfDs per the BLP policy, the vandalism policy, and IAR, but sure. Make it formal so that we don't have to explain this to people in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support and also broadly any BLP-related April fool's jokes. Let's not harm BLPs with "jokes". Galobtter (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support to make it clear that it's unacceptable. Also agree with Galobtter's broadly any BLP-related April fool's jokes. Schazjmd (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. So, editors who want to write April Fools content on BLPs will have to get creative and write about non-living subjects? Tough. There are plenty of long-dead people and other subjects to choose from. I would extend this to joke AfD's of articles on living people. BD2412 T 16:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. WP:BLP policy, and the spirit behind it, overrides the need some people apparently have to make jokes at the expense of living people on something that represents itself as an encyclopaedia. If you must make such jokes, find a toilet wall somewhere to publish them on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support (and would also further support immediate elimination of April Fools' jokes that directly involve BLP). There are still ways to do April Fools jokes that do no touch BLPs. --Masem (t) 16:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to make unfunny jokes that reference living individuals.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose (support, but see below) per WP:CREEP and WP:AJR - not because I don't think they should be removed, but because we already have many rules that already say this. These pages are attack pages and we already have multiple policies that say clearly and explicitly that it's not okay to create them, and that they can be immediately deleted, including point 3 of the rules for fools, but every year someone makes one anyway. The sort of people who do this believe that saying "it's a joke" relieves them of any obligation to be decent or to follow rules, and making another rule for them to ignore in pursuit of a cheap laugh isn't going to help the situation at all. Delete these pages when you see them, or if you can't delete them then replace the entire content of the page with {{db-attack}}, and remember that WP:3RR does not apply if you're removing harmful info about living persons. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I see that WP:FOOLR conflicts on joke BLP deletions. Bullet 3 under conduct reads in part, "Think carefully before nominating a BLP article for deletion." I support changing this to read, "Do not nominate a BLP article for deletion." Which I guess means that I support the proposal. My comment above stands, though: this does not need to be a new policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, I actually agree with your general commentary here (I think we're already well within policy to delete this nonsense if we deem it necessary), but there's a reason I supported and brought the RfC to the community's attention: a failure of this RfC would mean next year the April 1st crowd would point to the failure of this RfC as evidence that they could create AfDs about BLPs. Is this just clarifying what should already be a best practice? Yes. Is it unfortunately necessary to make the clarification now that the question has been raised? Also yes. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  I get what you're saying, but we can thump people over the head with this new rule for all the rest of this year, someone's just going to say "but it's funny!" and do it anyway. They can point to this discussion all they want, I'm still going to delete their stupid attack page "jokes" with the backing of the BLP policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, and I would suggest we disallow any and all April Fool's activity in mainspace. Like it or not, we're a much bigger deal than when this tradition began; we need to take our credibility a little more seriously. Moreover, April Fools is not equally popular across the world, and odds are we're confusing a non-trivial number of our readers. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Never mind that; I see we already disallow this formally. So I'll limit myself to saying we shouldn't have to legislate this, as common sense would suggest these are a bad idea for living people; but since it still happens, it's worth spelling out. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Relying on commonsense does not work when there are thousands editors ranging from under 8 yo to over 80. The internet is a big place and people should use another website to muck about with BLP topics. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral - I believe tasteful BLP AfDs can be done, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rosen, but I can understand not trusting people to make such joke AfDs when the subject is controversial and the page invites attacks. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't see that as being particularly tasteful. BD2412 T 22:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Johnuniq, pretty much. J947 † ^edits 09:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't actually change anything about the status of BLPs, just gives the people who already care about the rules–and only them, none of the more flippant people who are likely to do something serious–more to read. small jars tc 11:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, especially BLP-specific rules; neutral on rewording WP:FOOLR if #3 is not specific enough.

"Sensitive" only weakly correlates with "BLP". I am pretty sure "Delete France and its cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is more offensive than "delete David Attenborough, his voice put me to sleep". It could make sense to have rules banning any joke AfDs about sensitive topics, because those may inadvertently leak into mainspace (some people fail to follow Wikipedia:Rules_for_Fools#Joke_deletion_nominations #1). However, I would say the proportionate reply is to sanction those who let joke AfDs into mainspace, and to sanction them more harshly if it was a particularly damning joke, not to forbid all cheeky jokes.

Yes, WP:BLP applies also to joke AfD pages. The only change compared to talk pages is that the context allows a lighter tone and some WP:V "violations" (for instance, "Song Kang-ho stole my green fish" is not a serious accusation of criminal behavior).

"Lighter tone" is IMO sufficiently fenced by the current WP:FOOLR#3 standard against "Discriminatory / makes other editors feel unwelcome". I have no principled objection to rewording it if necessary, but I do not think "poor taste" is a reasonable reason to disallow joke AfDs (BLP or otherwise). Of the comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump, none deserve a comedy award, but I see only one that violates BLP. "Poor taste" is highly subjective. The fact that some jokes are funnier in the heat of the moment is an argument for looser, rather than stricter, controls. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP. We all should use common sense when making joke AFD discussions. Also, this is already a policy at WP:BLPTALK. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Moot point per Pizzaplayer219. Any changes to the rules for fools are going to start a super lame edit war, and the current system handles this just fine. So why do we need this? casualdejekyll 15:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• POINT OF ORDER: Any AFD of living people must be closed and sent to RFD.
  I support deletion as an XNR. Alsee (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pizzaplayer219, as I think the Rules for Fools do a pretty good job of this already. Common sense dictates that if the AfD is in bad faith or is disruptive, it should be deleted per the line in Rules for Fools: As Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is still in effect, avoid jokes that are directed at or reference living persons. Think carefully before nominating a BLP article for deletion. I would support adding a clarifier to the end of that, such as: "Jokes in violation of the BLP will be deleted". Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, and suggesting Alt proposal: Only ban joke AFDs for contentious living people. The cited examples as provided by the IP are two extremely contentious figures in American politics. They're reasonable to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. However, Tom Brady, Taylor Swift, Kylie Jenner, and Bernard Arnault should not be off limits as long as Rules for Fools are being followed. Banning jokes off of Tom Brady in the real world at all would be a SNOW, and banning jokes about him on an obviously humorous page is an absurd move. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)