Just to be fully clear, this is a serious proposal, not any sort of belated prank. I also wrote it to be standalone, so please forgive the extra context/etc. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

Note: Title refactored by Pythoncoder 21:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC). Was originally "Revoke the Main Page's exemption from the disclosure requirement".[reply]

The extent to which pranks are tolerated on Wikipedia during April Fools' Day has long been subject to debate, with a large multi-part RfC that closed in July 2016 determining that there was consensus to allow jokes so long as they stay out of the Article^[1] and Help^[2] namespaces. There was also consensus to endorse the requirement, first passed in 2013, that jokes be disclosed using a tag like {{Humor}}.^[3] However, there was clear consensus for an exemption to allow the long-standing tradition of jokes on the Main Page to continue.^[4] This discussion focused only on whether Main Page jokes should be allowed, not whether they need to be disclosed, but when it was codified along with the other RfC results at WP:FOOLS, language was added that stated that the Main Page was exempt from both the namespace ban and the disclosure requirement, consistent with the 2013 consensus that Main Page jokes not be disclosed. Since July 2016, several areas of the main page that used to participate have decided to stop doing so, with participation this year only by WP:DYK.

The previous major discussion on this topic in July 2016 took place a few months before the beginning of a dramatic shift in the global attitude toward misinformation that has continued to the present. It also neglected to substantively address the question of whether the Main Page should be exempted specifically from the disclosure requirement, which has not been thoroughly discussed since 2013, when this project was much less matured. Given these two things, I think it is time to reassess that question. Accordingly, this proposal asks that WP:FOOLS be changed to revoke the Main Page's exemption from Rule No. 2, which requires that all jokes be tagged using {{Humor}} or similar templates.

Constrained April Fools' Day activities within editor spaces can be a positive for Wikipedia, as they help build a sense of community and thus boost editor retention. However, these concerns must be balanced against potential interference with the purpose of Wikipedia as the repository of the world's collective knowledge. With this in mind, there are several reasons that the Main Page exemption from disclosure tags is harmful:

• It has the potential to mislead readers. Taking as example the first DYK from this year, I could very easily imagine someone reading ... that former President Clinton said his day would be ruined if it didn't include a bacon butty?, not clicking the link to Clinton, and being misled as a result. The consequences aren't particularly serious in this instance (unless PETA is a lot more powerful than I think it is), but spreading misinformation is still bad, and other joke DYKs have and may go into more consequential areas (e.g. religion this year).
• Readers who get the joke may still lose faith in Wikipedia's trustworthiness. Wikipedia has struggled throughout its existence to be taken seriously and to earn a reputation for trustworthiness. Misleading people, even when they know it is a joke, damages that reputation.
• The presence of jokes on the main page encourages vandalism elsewhere in mainspace. It's hard to come up with any concrete evidence of this, but I have little doubt that some readers who see jokes on the main page take that as license to insert them into articles. Casual editors are highly unlikely to make their way to WP:FOOLS to learn otherwise.

Not to be a grinch, but I do not believe the fun we get from writing the DYKs outweighs these concerns, nor do I believe it's worth it to make our brand appear more lighthearted. This is a necessary and responsible change that we ought to soberly adopt.

• Support as proposer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Support I have no strong feelings about this, but I feel like this isn't necessary as the DYKs are technically true and thus don't technically infringe on our status as an encyclopedia. That said, I see how Wikipedia is a part of the real world and not everyone "gets" the April Fools' stuff. As for the exemption from rule #2, perhaps its removal is warranted given that none of the other Main Page sections do April Fools'; however, the {{Humor}} template might clutter its appearance, so perhaps {{April Fools}} can be used instead. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor quibble, it used to be the case that Featured Articles, Featured Pictures, Featured List, and so on were a part of the April Fools Main Page, but it seems that tradition stopped between 2014 and 2015. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware, I meant that only DYK currently engages in April Foolery. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Today’s Feature Picture still does April Fools stuff (this year’s picture was from the article ha-ha). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, they also did a penguin last year. But those are merely humorous and not misleading like the DYKs are. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: By allowing people to focus on creating funnier jokes without having to plan how to minimize disruption, more extensively modified versions versions of the main page can be created. This should unleash people's creativity and allow for multiple humourous versions in a given year (maybe an all-vegan main page can duke it out with a carnivore's delight, for example). isaacl (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose readers like them. In the example given, Colin Clinton received over 9,000 page views yesterday. South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, the 5th hook, received 13,000 page views yesterday. Pepsi Cool Cans, the 10th hook, got almost 19,000 page views yesterday making it one of the most successful DYKs of all time. In fact, April 1st hooks are over-represented at WP:DYKBEST. Of the ~150 lead hooks with more than 25,000 page views five are from april fools. Of the ~220 non-lead hooks to receive over 15,000 page views, 23 of them were from April Fools. 1 April is 0.2% of the year, but 7.5% of our most engaging hooks are from that day. If you choose any random hook from yesterday, the linked article would have more views than most hooks from March or February. Our readers are not joyless machines, and it's very obvious that they enjoy our April Fools hooks by how many more readers decide to click through. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, all those numbers are compared to the 23 million daily viewers of the Main Page (at least as of 2016, per WP:RECORDS). We're also not asking that these jokes be banned, just that they be clearly marked. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but my point still stands. Presumably main page views on April 1st are like any other day. If not, then something is attracting more readers, and the main change is the April Fools DYK hooks. So if April 1st readership is not like other days, it's probably because of the April Fools DYK Hooks which proves my point that readers like them. If, however, main page views on April 1st are like any other day, then there should not be an over-representation of April 1st hooks on WP:DYKBEST, but there is. I don't see any reason why they need to be clearly marked, no one has offered any actual evidence, just unsubstantiated fears. The proposal is afraid people won't click through them but I've already showed that readers are actually more likely to click through these hooks than normal. People are worried that jokes may be lost on non-Anglophone readers despite this being the English Wikipedia and our content primarily serving Anglophone readers. The primary arguments are founded on fears of "fake news" and the death of traditional news media, not on any actual evidence about this encyclopedia and its readership. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a clickbait tabloid like The Sun or the Daily Mail dependent on user views and clicks for its survival. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This completely misses the point. Literally one of the DYK criteria that applies every day of the year is that the DYK hook should by "hook-y" and entice readers (hook them) to click on the bolded link. If we aren't here to serve our readers, then what the hell are we doing? Literally every publication relies on readers. Just because we don't make ad revenue doesn't mean we can just ignore readership. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Wugapodes: What makes you think that a disclosure would decrease the amount of traffic the links get? To the contrary, I'd argue that a template like the one proposed below is likely to increase traffic because it draws attention. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Sdkb: I never said it would, and I would prefer people stop misconstruing my point. Despite the assumptions of three different people, I actually have read and understood the proposal, and my opposition is not some misunderstanding. I do not misunderstand the proposal; I find it reactionary, wrong, and pointless. To your specific question: my goal isn't to increase or decrease traffic; my evidence is provided to refute a specific argument in your proposal and to show that it is based upon false assumptions. Specifically, your first point is that it is likely to mislead readers because they are unlikely to click through the links. I have shown that contrary to your concern, readers are more likely to click through the links than normal. If you wish to increase click throughs, we can have a discussion about that, but that is not the proposal under discussion. As I and others have pointed out, the second and third points are backed up by nothing but speculation, and even that speculation is hard to believe. The second point, for example: do you seriously believe that readers will look at funny hooks and instead of thinking "oh it's April Fools", they will instead assume that we have all suddenly and without warning given up on being a trustworthy publication? How do you get there? You've given no supporting reasoning or evidence; you have simply asserted that it is the case and hope that we believe you. This is an Anglophone tradition going back centuries and something Wikipedia has done every year for over 15 years. I simply cannot assume without evidence that our readers are so stupid that they will read 8 sentences and decide we have turned into Uncyclopedia. Finally, your third point admits you have no evidence to support it and that it is simply your belief. The proposal is being opposed because it is unpersuasive and not based in fact, not because DYK proponents are brigading it or misunderstanding the point. I hope this dispels any misconceptions because I would rather not explain myself a fourth time. If you can provide any evidence for any of your points, I will consider your proposed banner, but as it stands I will not support a proposal based upon imagined problems. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that more readers than normal are clicking the links tells us very little of relevance, since we still don't know the percentage of readers that are clicking through. If (by example) it's normally 10% and jumps to 15% on April 1, that would still be 85% of readers that might be being misled. The type of evidence you're asking for regarding license simply does not exist. That could be because it's an imaginary phenomenon, as you assume, or it could just be because vandals who take license to vandalize from the main page don't write in their edit summaries "hey, I saw you making jokes on the front page, so I assume it's fine to do that here, too". My common sense interpretation is that the latter is a lot more plausible, but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Page views for 1 April 2020 were the lowest of any day in the last 20 days. For the same period in 2019, 1 April had the lowest page views of the three mondays included, and the 6th lowest page views during that period. For the same period in 2018, 1 April had the lowest page views. For the same period in 2017, 1 April had the third lowest page views. For the same period in 2016, 1 April had the lowest number of page views. This is as far back as the data goes. You can do the math yourself; I've already done more leg work to find actual evidence than you have, so forgive me if I don't trust your baseless speculation. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support unless the April Fools community wishes to return to the tradition in the pre-2015 years of making the entire Main Page April Fools related, then for consistency sakes it would be the best for the rules to apply to the Main Page in its entirety. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I highly doubt that the TFA people want to go back to doing April Fools', and it's a terrible idea for ITN; I don't know about the other sections, though.. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only if the entire DYK section is marked with {{Humor}}. This makes everything clear. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 00:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is entirely unnecessary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately with the spread of fake news and misinformation in the past five years, this is entirely necessary. Wikipedia is in the real world and so what we understand to be a joke the rest of the world might not. If we don't, this risks, for instance, a lawsuit from the current president of the United States of America if any of our jokes end up making fun of Donald Trump, simply because of his inability to take criticism or distinguish jokes from criticism. Journalists and news websites might misread our jokes to publicise misleading and wrong claims as truths. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any evidence that any of the things you are speculating about has happened? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative support It is my understanding that this proposal would allow joke DYKs but require them to be marked with an April Fools template. If this is the case, then I believe the proposer has put forth compelling justification. However, if this proposal would ban DYKs entirely, then my vote should be counted as an oppose. I believe that April Fools Day DYKs are good seasonal fun that do a good job showing off some of our more unusual articles, and do not want them to be eliminated entirely. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose After reconsideration, I've decided to oppose this proposal. Procedurally I think this should be decided at WP:DYK rather than here. This is their jurisdiction, and I'm a bit hesitant to try to make decisions from the side. Additionally, I think some of my initial concerns were a bit overstated: these are DYKS too absurd to take seriously posted on a day dedicated to absurdist humor; I find it a little hard to believe that anyone would take these at face value even by someone who has never heard of April Fools Day. Additionally, none of the jokes would raise an eyebrow if they were individually posted any other day; the oddity here is that they are all posted at once. Finally, I do think there will be actual harm if this policy is implemented: many DYKers deliberately expand articles on absurd topics for APril Fools Day; putting a joke notice on the articles would kill the joke and disincentive this contribution. I do think that DYKs should really avoid making jokes about current political figures, even if lighthearted and in compliance with BLP. Less than a decade ago these jokes would have been fine, but with today's polarization I seriously worry these joke will explode in our faces. This however is a concern for another discussion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spirit of Eagle: Yes, my proposal would continue to allow the DYKs so long as they are tagged. Pinging Wugapodes as well based on your !vote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See above response to John, particularly The primary arguments are founded on fears of "fake news" and the death of traditional news media, not on any actual evidence about this encyclopedia and its readership. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – People are not being misled. They are being hooked and benefiting from it. It is supposed to be fun. If Wikipedia was not fun, we would have less participation in editing. The people that create these articles deserve to enjoy our work. Wikipedia has succeeded in retaining talent by allowing some fun to spill out once in a while. Don't make Wikipedia less fun. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose plenty of trusted media outlets and other major organisations regularly publish joke stories on April Fools Day without suffering any damage to their credibility. If doing this really is that damaging then I would expect there to be some sort of evidence of it, but none has been presented. Unlike Wikipedia's main page most April Fools stories are mixed in with regular news content and are entirely ficticious as opposed to just misleading, so they should be even worse. Sure, plenty of media outlets decided not to do that this year because of the coronavirus pandemic, but that's not something which should dictate long term policy. Hut 8.5 07:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking as someone who semi-professionally monitors this area, the major trend since 2016 has been for outlets that have satire columns (e.g. The New Yorker with the Borowitz Report) to use increasingly clear disclosure to avoid any potential to spread misinformation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose we are not sterile and don't need to be. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we may not be sterile, buut we are an encyclopedia. Many opposers to this proposal seem to be under the impression that it means removing "funny" DYKs totally; no, as the nominator points out above, it merely means tagging them so our (millions) of WP:READERs outsie the Anglosphere understand their context. At the moment we are doing the reader the disservice of assuming they recognise non-encyclopedic material in an encyclopedia: that's the joke. ——SN54129 10:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: I respect the entertaining nature of these hooks, and it's beneficial not to be completely sterile, but I also agree that they're also mildly deceiving at best. My proposal would be to make use light-hearted DYK hooks, such as those we typically use in what's known as the "quirky slot". These are normally restricted to the last of each DYK set, but we could fill the whole section with quirky hooks for April Fools'. Examples that we've run in the past include "that Canadian auto racing driver Kat Teasdale reportedly once asked the starter to wait while she applied lipstick?" or "that The California Field Atlas by Obi Kaufmann is neither a field guide nor a conventional atlas?" These hooks can elicit humour and curiosity from readers, while letting the content carry itself across without having us to resort to ambiguity to make them seem funny. I note that this is also the spirit espoused by POTD, with last year's featuring a penguin colonel-in-chief (courtesy of Amakuru) and this year's featuring a laughter-inducing wall (courtesy of yours truly). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed — I'd love to see something like this! It'll take a little creativity, but as you demonstrated with your excellent POTD example, it's very doable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - largely per Ravenpuff above. There seem to be two types of entry - those that are true, but sound like they're not true. Like the two POTDs that Ravenpuff mentions. Those are fine, and amusing, and can stay - in DYK, POTD and even TFA and OTD if appropriate and they aren't edging out more legitimate date-related entries. Then there are those that deliberately try to trick the reader into thinking it means something it doesn't, like the President Clinton example. Often using such convoluted language, that the phrase as written is simply not true by any interpretation. I don't think we should be doing that. I've had a look at this year's entries here, and I think there are four that I was OK with and the remainder that shouldn't have been run because they're misleading or inaccurate. Some might think I'm being a killjoy, but as much as I enjoy a good laugh, my priority is the readers and ensuring that we don't mislead them, even on the 1st of April. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: At 17:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC), a notice of this discussion (that wasn't quite WP:CANVASSING but edged toward it in the ensuing discussion there) featuring a title that described it inaccurately was added to WP:DYK. Please consider some of the !votes that follow in light of that, keeping in mind WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I was going to stay out of this but if DYK's April Fools Day rights are under threat, then I must oppose this. As the writer of 6 of the 11 DYK hooks this year, I feel I have to say that to remove that one day when people can have fun just turns us into humourless stolid editors. DYK April Fools cause no harm and are successful both in terms of views (as demonstrated above) and in actually bringing people to Wikipedia (just look at Twitter and other social media for evidence that the wider world actually approve and support that we do it. I will be neutral on this providing there is a firm ironclad guarentee in whatever wording is adopted, that DYK and the other main page projects are exempt from this and are permitted to continue with the fun articles that bring in many new viewers and encourage editing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the more time we waste on April Fool's on DYK, the less time we spend actually building an encyclopedia. Those DYK hooks took forever to get consensus on, and were mostly just deliberately misleading. Sooner we ditch it, the sooner we can get on with building an encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is not valid for volunteer projects. People aren't signed up to work a certain number of hours for Wikipedia. Taking away a thing a volunteer is interested in doesn't automatically motivate them to spend those hours on some other task within the project. ApLundell (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like you support removal of the MP jokes altogether, which is not what this RfC is about? >>BEANS X2t 05:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support only if the DYK section is marked with the {{humour}} template. --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Amakuru, Serial Number 54129 and Joseph2302. It's possible to have fun and be whimsical without being misleading, and we should apply the same standards to the Main Page that we do for articles themselves. XOR'easter (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a solution in search of a problem. One could just as easily say that eliminating a long-standing tradition would damage Wikipedia's reputation and community participation, and that assertion would be just as valid and evidenced as the complaint this proposal is based on.ApLundell (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant support, my problem is, won't {{humour}} look ugly / a bit off on the MP? I assumed that the exception was because it just wouldn't fit (not literally) in the MP, becuase it obviiously doesn't follow the style/format of most other pages, with Title-Lead-Section-Content. I just feel like it should'nt go there. And it'll also suggest that the whole of the MP is a joke, which some new readers may actually think it is, if they are expecting a modern, 2020s-style page (please don't make it modern and 2020s). >>BEANS X2t 06:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @BEANS X2: Agreed that we definitely wouldn't want to use {{Humor}} on the whole Main page, especially if it remains only DYK participating. Designing a custom disclosure template will be a fairly minor task if/when we've reached agreement on the principle of disclosure. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. I think that that would be the way to go, or we could tag individual DYK/ITN bullet points with {{April Fools}}. >>BEANS X2t 20:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @BEANS X2: I whipped up a draft of a custom disclosure template that could be used: - {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good! I like the linked image. >>BEANS X2t 07:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @BEANS X2: Thanks! It unfortunately looks like this proposal may be getting buried either by DYK campaigners or editors who didn't read it and think it'll ban jokes on the main page or a combination of both. Hopefully the closer will read dilgently and recognize that this is a textbook WP:NOTVOTE situation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sdkb: There are still problems with using this template. Not only could I hardly see it fitting nicely with the MP, but more importantly, what is "the links in this section may take you to unexpected places" even supposed to mean? Does it mean clicking on a link on the DYK section takes me to the rickroll video? Or to Uncyclopedia? I could imagine a lot of our viewers not daring to click into the links because they take them to unexpected places. For the record, I remain opposed to this entire proposal, because my concerns below regarding confusion to readers has not been addressed. Cheers --Dps04 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dps04: per WP:BEANS, I would be shocked if the notice led to less clicks; I'd anticipate exactly the opposite. Regarding your concern from below, as I understand it, it's that an April Fools' tag could mean either that a statement was true but misleading or was false. This template addresses that concern, I'd think, since it doesn't say "April fools!" but rather gives an (accurate) notice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sdkb: The problem arises from the ambiguity around the term unexpected places. To the average Wikipedia reader uninformed of our practices, this could mean a link to a lot of places, including a troll site, rickrolling (Youtube done exactly that in 2008, so it is not out of the realm of possibility our readers would think that), or who knows, even a dubious website or a jumpscare. I could be wrong who knows, but my feeling is not a lot of people would click those links if that's what they thought the links would take them. Anyhow, though my concerns remain (still opposed), I would still like to thank you for starting this discussion. Hope we don't need to go through this again come April 2021 --Dps04 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dps04: Tooltips and link previews can help with that a bit, but at some point readers just have to trust we'll be responsible enough not to send them to a jumpscare or the like; if they don't, the battle is already lost. Regarding 2021, we can hope, but I fear it's fairly likely we will. If the flood of "I just like it, get a sense of humor" !votes on this page succeed in handicapping efforts to reign things in, the behaviors that necessitated this RfC will just come back again. Thank you for actually engaging with the proposed template here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the longstanding mainpage April fools tradition is for strange but true stories like the one about a President Clinton, just not the President Clinton who first comes to mind. as long as we stick to that formula I see no problem with it. ϢereSpielChequers 15:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @WereSpielChequers: Do you believe that the practice is consistent with WP:LEAST and WP:EGG? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Sdkb taking EGG as an example, at the top of the page it says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I consider that April Fools day on the Mainpage is an example of an occasional exception. ϢereSpielChequers 17:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Ravenpuff and Amakuru. Theirs is an excellent solution to what has long been viewed as the toilet bowl of high-school humor that is known as DYK's April Fools set. Lighthearted hooks will probably get more views, too. Yoninah (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It was Yoninah that suggested that President Clinton "seems like a great April Fools hook. " Have they changed their mind or are they confused? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Why so serious? The fun part of April Fool's DYK is that each hook is factually true, even if slightly misleading. We used to do it OTD as well but I dropped it as by definition OTD has a limited set of articles to work with, and it was in poor taste to lead into something like Battle of Okinawa with a joke. It's one day of the year, for Pete's sake. As for objections like "Those DYK hooks took forever to get consensus on", well guess what, you don't have to participate. —howcheng {chat} 18:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - DYK often has a joke-ish one in the last slot on normal days anyways, it's fine for it to be the whole section once a year. ansh.666 18:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't get why people are !voting based on the fact that they like the DYK jokes - this RfC is not about removing them. An 'April Fools Day!' notice makes sure that people are not misled with the info on the Main Page without removing the jokes, which I wouldn't want. I also agree with BEANS X2; the standard {{humour}} wouldn't fit; so a custom one may be created, saying something like 'To celebrate April Fools Day on Wikipedia, some of the entries on this page are satire' or something akin to that. If DYK remains the only participant, it should be placed only on that section, but if more sections participate it would be good to put it at the top. GoodCrossing (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the point of the DYK jokes on the main page is that they are factually accurate. It's one of the few places you can trust not to lie to you on April 1. Adding a humour tag would cause problems - people might take it as permission to lie on the main page. In the interest of the integrity of the main page, I'm against this idea. Guettarda (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - adding the April Fools tag is misleading. If I were a reader and I read a DYK fact with the tag attached to it, it could mean two things to me: (1) the statement is technically true, but drafted in a misleading manner, or (2) the statement is outright false as part of an april fool's joke. Isn't this more confusing for me? --Dps04 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The President Clinton hook was suggested and approved as a standard DYK. The idea of running it on April Fools day was an afterthought. DYK routinely runs hooks which are unusual or surprising. For example, on the previous day, the quirky hook was "Did you know that ... Klingons are positively Shakespearean?". You have to click through to fully understand that and that's by design. So, if there were some special po-faced rule for April Fools Day, the same hooks would be run on another day. That might be an amusing meta-joke – that we would run our most boring and unsurprising facts on a day when the opposite is expected. But it would be too subtle for most readers, I suppose, and so be counter-productive. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If DYK MOS:EGG violations are happening outside of April 1, too, that's a reason to better enforce MOS:EGG outside of April 1, not to overturn MOS:EGG. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  More enforcement of MOS:EGG wouldn't change DYK, you would need to get consensus to change the Manual of Style to remove the "occasional exceptions may apply" bit of MOS:EGG. Off the top of my head I can't think of another place where such exceptions would be appropriate. Though I don't doubt there will be some somewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 08:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The "occasional exceptions" line is just within the standard {{MoS guideline}} header template for the whole MOS:LINK page. It links to WP:IAR, so what you're really arguing is that this is an IAR situation. I don't agree, since the concern about misleading was exactly the reason MOS:EGG was adopted, so it's fully applicable here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - because in 2010, three survivors of the Titanic were rescued by the USCGC Chincoteague is a true fact, as were all other facts presented on April Fools Day. It's a harmless bit of fun once a year. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the nominator's three rationales — that readers are misled, that it damages Wikipedia's trustworthy reputation, and that it encourages vandalism elsewhere — are only based on assertion and opinion. No actual evidence that these hooks are a problem. – Teratix ₵ 13:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:NBDF. There is no evidence of a problem here. Modest Genius ^talk 14:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Hut 8.5. I don't see evidence of a problem and this is actually the only part of April 1st on Wikipedia that I like. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It isn't vandalism, and (for the most part) actually is funny, and lets our readers know that we have a sense of humor. What's the problem here? epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: the whole point of those DYKs is that they are entirely truthful, and so no special tagging is needed. --Carnildo (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per others above. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dps04 and Carnildo. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – The proposer speculates on potential negative effects of DYK jokes on April 1st, but other commenters uphold – with data – the actual positive effects of upholding this mostly harmless tradition. — JFG ^talk 00:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is, frankly, a waste of time that is in itself an absolute net negative to the project. We have a tradition that lets us joke around and have a laugh, one day out of every year, and every year have to deal with some reactionary who is on some stupid high horse and wants to litigate and reform our harmless tradition of (gasp!) having a sense of humor. Just let people have some fun and take the damn stick out of your ass. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Swarm: Your colorful characterization is noted and appreciated. You seem, like many other recent !voters, to be assuming that this proposal somehow entails the death of being allowed to make jokes on April 1. Please take a look above at the proposed template I recently added above. What, specifically, about adding that to the DYK section would be so horrible that it would kill off April Fools'? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing in Swarm's comment suggesting they are under the impression that this proposal somehow entails the death of being allowed to make jokes on April 1. – Teratix ₵ 13:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. My crassness is not the result of some misunderstanding. It is the result of the frustration that we have these discussions every single year. We have always had this tradition that people enjoy and it has always been perfectly harmless, and perfectly ignorable by anyone who's not interested. Yet year after year, a faction of editors bizarrely always want to waste the community's time by holding these tedious discussions about the seemingly-nonexistent reasons why we need to restrict, scale back or abolish April Fools. These perennial discussions are obviously not supported by the community because they never get anywhere, and the insistence on repeatedly having them is far more disruptive to the project than the one day of April 1st itself. My harshness is not directed at the OP specifically so much as it is the institution of having reactionary meta-discussions every year. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to assume that you read the proposal before !voting, and that you therefore know that I was unable to find any substantive discussion on this specific question since 2013. If I missed something, please point me to it; more context is always good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given the perennial, annual nature of reactionary anti-April Fools' movements, it matters little to me if the specificity of your particular question in itself has been repeatedly considered. It is part of a larger problem. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Teratix. We need actual evidence that this is disruptive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Pythoncoder has refactored the title, which should hopefully help address some of the confusion evident in recent !votes.
• Support per Sdkb and GoodCrossing. I am not convinced by the oppose arguments that this is a solution in search of a problem. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 19:53, 09 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we are allowed to have fun DYKs one day a year --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Disclosure: I do not like having a "day in which we are allowed to lie", to me it is on average detrimental to community feeling. Still I understanding that having *one* joke somewhere in, say, a newspaper or TV news, can be fun, specially if it it ludicrous enough to raise suspicious. The problem with April Fools within WP is that there are too many jokers, and we may get flooded with jokes, and WP is not a joke's site. - Nabla (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: the April Fools' hooks at DYK are even still required to be true. It's about as tame as it can get. I see no evidence of damage or disrepute by indulging in humour once a year, in a way that is obvious to anyone who reads the hook properly or clicks on the links. Get TFA back in on it, find some funny things that happened on April 1 for OTD, and get some FP and FL funnies too if possible. — Bilorv (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nabla and Amakuru. And, the fact "that we have these discussions every single year" is not a reason to stop them; rather, perhaps, a reason to realise that a substantive portion of the community finds it necessary to have them. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The essence of a really good Wikipedia April fool is that it's 100% factual, but at the same time complete bollocks. Tagging it as humorous spoils the entiore thing. Either don't have April fools, or don't tag them. Guy (help!) 18:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. How can you seriously propose to tag the DYK section with a disclosure template? That will look ugly and will completely ruin the jokes.
  The April 1 DYKs always get some extra serious effort. The people at the DYK project are trying hard to amuse people on that day. And, as The C of E said elsewhere, they will "certainly be disincentivised to contribute" if they aren't allowed "to have fun on one day of the year".
  By the way, the Clinton hook (the one that particularly upset the proposer) is absolutely factually accurate and could have been run on any day of the year. So, if the proposal is passed, a possible workaround would be to make the April 1 DYK section as dull as possible and save all the funniest facts for other days when there are no restrictions on being humorous. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with above commentators that there is no evidence presented that this is actually harming readers. Editors are volunteers and have chosen to spend time on April Fools related hooks. I don't find the fact that we need to be a very serious website a convincing reason as to why we can't partake in the April's Day traditions. I think our readers also appreciate this.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As noted above, this is good April Fools content. Lightheartened, genuinely interesting, minimally disruptive beyond "huh?" Not a prank but something to add a simple smile. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support strongly. Aprils fools in serious publications was fun a few decades ago. The Guardian newspaper in England did some wonderfully elaborate hoaxes, and I loved The Irish Times's publication of a recipe for stuffed lentils which some of its readers were daft enough to try to cook.
  But now in the era of fake news, hoaxes are no longer an occasional joke; they are a daily intrusion, propagated by all sorts of bad-faith actors. The idea of hoax news has moved from the funny category to the systemic threat category. One of the arts of good joking is knowing when to stop, if it isn't funny any more … and in a media world which looks very different to five or ten years ago, it's time for Wikipedia to cease being the dick who doesn't know when to stop joking.
  Yes, I enjoyed many of the DYK double-bluffs, and I admire those who create them … but in these changed times, they area luxury which can no longer be afforded by a publication which always struggle for credibility in the face of critics of open-sourcing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A false conservatism will bury us. A couple of playfully misleading, obvious joke sentences on the Main Page once a year do no harm to the project, and historically have helped it greatly by fostering a sense of community where it's needed most. I don't think I would be the contributor I am today, or would have had the confidence to do accomplish half as much with IRL communities in the United States, if not for my formative experience with the April Fools Main Page.--Pharos (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - any disclosure will ruin the set-up, no indication this does any harm. Solution without a problem Nosebagbear (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is not the right solution to the problem. Instead of adding a disclosure, we ought to stop using hooks that are, too often, contrived and cringeworthy. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this would be a terrible outcome. Tagging the jokes would completely spoil the effect and there is no evidence to suggest that there is any problem in need of resolution here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Some people take themselves too seriously and are using this as an attempt to wield power to say "no you can't do that". The community as a whole overwhelmingly approves of low-grade tomfoolery. Mentioning and linking President Clinton without mentioning which one is intentionally misleading because it is vague and is part of the fun of April Fools day, but encourages people to read a little deeper. If anything, we could make a better effort to make people click it such as only including part of a sentence and a link for the rest of the story. Buffs (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Totally agree that Wikipedia should not misled people at all, especially if it was not clearly marked. Besides that, April Fool's Day might not observed worldwide.  Kenrick  Talk 13:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it's one day a year, get a sense of humour. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support humor has its place and time and this proposal helps make sure those are clear. — MrDolomite • Talk 01:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: While technically they are true, the DYKs are not just misleading but misleading by design, which is about as direct a violation of WP:LEAST and WP:EGG as one could get, so I don't think it's possible to argue that they're consistent with our normal encyclopedic activities. Nothing like them would ever be remotely acceptable outside of April 1. And agreed that {{April Fools}} might be better than {{Humor}}; we can sort out the details on that once we reach consensus on general principle. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's certainly fair enough. If I'm not mistaken there was once a hook about how "Trump is directly linked to Moscow", referring to one of his Scottish golf courses being located near Moscow, Scotland, which also appears to be a BLP violation. Assuming such jokes aren't banned (which they're probably not going to), the best thing would be to put the inline {{April Fools}} after each hook to minimize clutter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the actual hook was "Trump is directly connected to Russia", referring to two intersecting streets in London. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Link is here. This was a controversial hook at the time; consensus was reached to add the hooks about Obama and Hillary for the sake of balance. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it just be better for the community to stop doing joke DYKs as they did with joke Featured Articles and In the News a few years ago? 73.168.5.183 (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps so, but I don't think there will be consensus for that, given that my proposal here seems to be controversial as is. I think the best approach is to seek consensus that all mainspace/help space jokes need to be tagged without exemption, and then leave it to individual projects like DYK to decide how they want to proceed given that restriction in place. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, IP, no. There will not be consensus at DYK for that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The FA and ITN sections seem to have lost their mojo. FA has so little fresh material it is reduced to running feeble stuff like When You Get a Little Lonely – a bad album that didn't chart. And ITN does little but run recent deaths now – the current blurbs are all quite stale with nothing new for a week now. This is typically what happens with Wikipedia projects – they accrue rules and regulations which are then used by busybodies and jobsworths to disrupt and obstruct activity. This then drives away contributors and so the project declines. DYK has an incredible number of rules – over a hundred – but is the one part of the main page that remains productive and vigorous. Naturally the killjoys want to put a stop to that too but that's why we have policies like WP:CREEP which is very applicable here. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ITN you'd expect to be very slow right now, since there's no longer a steady stream of sporting events to push stale stories off the bottom of the queue, and lockdowns in much of the world mean there's less opportunity for people to do newsworthy things. As regards TFA, the idea that there was once a Golden Age when all the TFAs were on core topics is a myth; one of the first-ever TFAs was All your base are belong to us. Compare this month's queue with the same queue a decade ago and the niche/non-niche balance is virtually identical. The list of FAs that have yet to run at TFA is here; while there are certainly some gaps in coverage and over-representation of some topics owing to the interests of particular editors, it doesn't tally with the "it's only popular culture, hurricanes and video games!" stereotype. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TFA had some fun with April in the good old days. For example, I like the featuring of George Washington on April 1st, 2007 – rather like the recent Clinton hook. The blurb is worth repeating so kudos to Pharos for their entertaining work. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee, and worked to ensure a full supply to soldiers fighting at the front. Early on, his campaign was based in Brooklyn, but later he crossed into New Jersey toward a more profitable position. In the countryside, he demonstrated a love of wild creatures, and was often seen with a bird or a monkey on his shoulder. Washington's choice beverage was taken up by the soldiers for its psychoactive properties, even though it tasted terrible. Some thought his brewed powder could even remedy the chemical weapons then in use. But, despite this, Washington failed in his first bid for the Presidency, as papers were filed too late, and the nominator forgot to tell him about it. ...

It was funny when 'General Tomfoolery' got changed to 'General Jerryfoolery'. But when users are edit warring over section titles as happened in the past four years, moving the page randomly to other titles, as happened in 2017, unnecessarily duplicating the page as happened in 2020, blanking entire sections as happened in 2019 and 2020, messing with the text font, orientation, or size, or the css as happened in 2018, 2019, and 2020, linking to random external links, and performing other such examples of vandalism on the yearly April Fools documentation page, it becomes too excessive and out of hand, and the Wikipedia administrators should crack down upon these violations of Wikipedia policy. 107.77.173.61 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020/The Great April Fools' Day Edit War of 2020 there is a statement that says 'Please do not play pranks here; this is meant to be an archive.' This statement should be on the main Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020 page and that page shouldn't exist in the first place. 107.77.173.61 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I actually with this person. They have a good point. I couldn't even understand what was happening during April Fools because of the vandalism happening. Koridas (Speak) 15:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I also agree with the above. Vandalism humour is cheap and unfunny. @InvalidOS: We discussed this in private, so you might want to weigh in on it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Minor things, such as adding a {{troutme}} onto the page, a COVID-19 infection banner, or a non-article category addition are fine, but redirections, article copies, blanking, song lyrics, 135° rotations of the entire page, and 10K+ byte additions should be prohibited. HotdogPi 16:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I agree with this, except that we should be socially distancing ourselves from all coronavirus-related humor coronavirus jokes should be avoided at all costs. To add to the okay/not okay lists, I would say adding tasteful external links or reasonably sized images is fine; reversing the text, adding overly large images, or adding fair use images in violation of WP:NFCC are not. The standard should probably be, is it possible to constructively add pranks per the page's original purpose? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed I believe we can play pranks, but there is a limit. The main problem with vandalism and edit warring is (1) it stops consensus from occurring, (2) it unnecessarily fills up the page history and (3) it becomes difficult to patrol in recent changes patrol. Other users can play pranks on user pages, but only if they have a notice that says that they are willing to be subject to April Fool's pranks. In the future, we need to make sure that emphasis on policies are all over the place. Maybe at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:April Fools. Aasim 16:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another note, how about let's stay away from politics in the future to avoid this from happening. We do not want to talk about our opinions on Donald Trump or Boris Johnson or anyone else political on April Fools day. Aasim 17:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Awesome Aasim: In general, those are against the rules per the facts of this arbitration decision. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - (edit conflict) Yes, I agree, vandalism isn't funny. Even if it is, it's usually disruptive. Though it might be able to be allowed to a limited extent, for example, the bird section on the 2020 page that was present earlier, as that wasn't disruptive since it didn't effect any other parts of the page. Though, I think a total stopping of vandalism of the page would be an easy solution, and it would mean that admins wouldn't have to use more resources on managing April Fools. Admin resources should be directed towards more serious activities, but fun on Wikipedia is still great for just winding down and taking a break. We need to keep April Fools. Maybe we could do something like having an event involving comedy articles as well. So we all don't go too crazy. Invalid^OS_talk 16:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as someone who absolutely lost their mind today, I can say that it is a bit too much. I understand why vandalism and other things is not good for the site. And though I thought last year's edit war was funny, this one really isn't funny from a logical standpoint. I think InvalidOS' idea of creating comedy pages rather than just edit warring over a section title or cluttering XFD with jokes. This would mean that rules would need to be changed. Those pages could then be archived in the April Fools day page. I also agree that we need to let GAFDEWII fade into obscurity so we don't encourage vandalism. One Blue Hat^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 20:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This became excessive long ago. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This year, there was a serious issue of people posting copyrighted images to the April Fools page, a clear violation of policy and copyright law. The edits were coming in so fast it was nearly impossible to remove the images or even to find out who was posting them. I'm still undecided about whether we should continue the great edit war tradition, but this is a serious concern. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps move the edit warring elsewhere, as per the comment below me? Also pinging @Pythoncoder:, he's been very much involved in ruling the fooling this year. dibbydib ^(💬) 06:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A review of the page history is...illuminating. The easy fix is to prohibit all hijinks on the main documentation page, create an empty /editwar subpage (move protect it) where anything but outright policy violations is allowed, and let people blow off steam there. Even if copyvio/non-free image use slipped through enforcement the entire thing could be harmlessly deleted at the end of the day. It would be nice to word future guidance in a way so that little jokes a la jerry foolery are allowed within reason on the main April Fools page for the year. However that's easier said than done as bright lines are difficult to write in a way that avoids being both under and over inclusive. Fuzzier guidance is not really a prefferred option in this case since circumstance would make it an enforcement nightmare. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems silly to have to !vote on this. Wikipedia isn't a safe space for obnoxious and childish behavior. -FASTILY 03:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Fastily. Low-level disruption is still disruption. ——SN54129 10:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Fastily and SN. Disruption and vandalism of any kind should not be tolerated. –Davey2010^Talk 11:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As someone who was involved in the edit war, I will say that other than changing the foolery title, everything else was pretty bad (Got to the point where I wasn't thinking straight and I made edits that I regret). Thankfully, all of that died down when the page was protected so if we are going to do this again next year, we need to semiprotect the page. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of edit warring over the Other pranks title and creating an entirely new page for it, the discussion should be had on the April Fools 2020 talk page and a vote should be held. Half of the material on WP:GAFDEW2 properly belong on the April Fools 2020 talk page. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:The Lord of Math has suggested implementing an edit filter to deal with the vandalism and edit warring. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the main April page is not meant for this. It is meant as an archive. Adding an /editwar page might solve the problem, but if so then the page would not have to be edit like 10 times per minute (so the EF would be useful). For the editwar page, I believe it is fine as long as it is not disruptive. I do consider spamming the page with rotating edits disruptive, esp. if they are coming at a rate of more than a few edits per minute. IMHO skewing the page, adding (non-disruptive) pics that do not violate policy, clever puns etc. are appreciated, copyrighted lyrics are not and the EF should still be upheld for these pages. Cheers, TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 00:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The constant vandalism on this page made it impossible to add pranks, at least until the page was semi-protected. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This year there was a major problem with editors posting copyrighted images. Edits were coming in at such a breakneck pace due to the edit war that it was nearly impossible to remove the images or even figure out who was posting them. This flagrant violation of copyright law was bad enough, but I'm quite frankly concerned that something even worse could slip through. More generally, the April Fools pages are meant to catalogue April Fools jokes so that Wikipedians can keep track of what's going on. Adding non-disruptive pranks or silly images are perfectly fine and should be allowed, but we should draw the line when these "pranks" make the pages unreadable. (So in short, no more Great Edit Wars. 2019 was fun, but I really do not want a repeat of this year's edit war). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, yeah I guess. Changing the text last year was OK. But messing up the formatting with huge font sizes, blatant spamming, templates, images, ect. is going too far and stopping people from mantaining the actual page. As for the edit conflicts.... And then this year someone thought 'wont it be funny if we do the whole funny edit war thing again this year'. And within a few hours it's nearly double the revisions compared to last year's page. I'm not against messing around, just not this. >>BEANS X2t 09:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I support the general principle that the page should be an archive. It's very difficult to draw the line between the good non-disruptive changing of "tomfoolery" to "jerryfoolery" and the highly disruptive rotation/blanking. I hope we'll find a way to get editors to exercise restraint next year, but if that fails, it may be necessary to enact a strict "no pranking on this page" policy. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I thought this was supposed to be a page for tracking jokes, not the joke page itself. After a while the edit warring gets tiring rather than funny. epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I could barely see what was happening on April fools Day due to the excessive edit warring. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am ambivalent about this. As one of the most active participants of this edit war, I can't deny that I enjoyed both the edit warring itself, and its documentation. I restrained myself to only edit warring over the section name, and to work on the documentation page in parallel; but some did not, and things definitely got out of hand on multiple occasions. This resulted in serious violations of policy, as mentioned. And honestly, this made it difficult to continue the edit war over the section title (not to mention the efforts to document it). So even though I want the edit war over the section title to still be possible next year, some of the edit warring on the April Fools page was simply annoying! I also agree with Spirit of Eagle when he says that he fears something worse than copyright infringement might slip through. Looking at the multitude of covert external links in the section title, this may be a major issue, especially when the documentation isn't keeping up with it. That said, I do believe that this year's circumstances were unique, due to the fact that so many people were editing out of self-isolation. I have hopes that next year's April Fool's edit war will be less chaotic. I suggest to wait and see what happens next year. Renerpho (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone who enjoys edit warring should be blocked. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 07:42, 01 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What one enjoys or doesn't enjoy is irrelevant; what matters is how one behaves. I am pretty sure that the main reason why people edit war over that section title is because they consider it funny and enjoyable. That alone is harmless, and no reason to block anybody, as far as I am concerned. If people break policies in the process, become destructive, or harass other users, it's a different story. All of these happened during this year's April Fools day, which is why we have this discussion now. I couldn't enjoy a seemingly harmless edit war like this if I knew that it involves actual violence. So, to make next year's April Fools day an enjoyable experience, some of the events of 2020 must not repeat. The question is, can we find a compromise? Renerpho (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will this apply to all joke edits to the April Fools Day page, or just those that are disruptive or make it difficult to read the page? I assume the latter, but this should really be cleared up. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some joke Wikipedia:Requested moves like the ones on Milton Keynes Dons F.C., Nine Inch Nails, and Wikipedia:April Fools have templates on the main article placed there by the User:RMCD bot. So I would suggest to create similar rules for requested moves, mergers, splits, and redirects for discussion as is current for articles for deletion to prevent disruption on the article itself. 107.77.173.61 (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have updated the title to indicate discussion about similar rules for joke mergers, splits, and redirects. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Aren't these Move Requests against the rules? I thought April Fools was limited to Projectspace. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I understand, talk space is allowed as long as the article itself is unaffected. HotdogPi 16:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's correct. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify: that’s what it was when I read WP:FOOLS a few days ago, but since then, someone added the two talk namespaces to the ban. I reverted this edit because the change had been made without consensus. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rule 1 says All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the "article", "article talk", "help", and "help talk" namespace. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wrote that comment at 10:49 am UTC time and it seems that User:Interstellarity edited the page to add the talk pages clarification to rule one on 11:41 am UTC. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Interstellarity's edit was reverted for lack of consensus in the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.173.1 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I thought consensus was already not to have April Fools moves... but if not then Yes I support moves being excluded. –Davey2010^Talk 21:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This seems like a good, common sense proposal. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Prudent change to minimize disruption. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously. -FASTILY 03:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ——SN54129 12:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems like a good idea. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support They go hand in hand, so it should really apply. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future proofing, because most likely the disruption would migrate from AfD nominations to adminship requests if the former gets banned as per above section. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I see no harm in waiting until April Fools Day 2021 to see if there is a problem here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose wasn't really a problem this year. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - RFA etc is never usually a problem as we only tend to get 1-2 per year, Those that are problematic tend to be deleted on the spot. –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are only a few of these a year. I don't think they're such a big problem that they need to be banned. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The people who joke-nom things to death are probably not the people who spend that much time in the RfA process, so there's no need for this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blanket restriction, not seeing sufficient evidence of disruption; fine with setting a limit of one joke request per editor. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This has never really been a problem. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there aren't many joke RfAs, they don't cause problems for encyclopedia content, and they tend to be in better taste than the joke XfDs. Hut 8.5 07:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We have a simple rule for April Fools, stay out of mainspace. I see no reason to complicate that further. Plus i can think of at least one joke RFA and a request for signatureship that were actually funny. ϢereSpielChequers 13:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping April Fools activities in a special contained place on Wikipedia, namely in subpages of Wikipedia:April Fools, would minimise disruption of the rest of Wikipedia and allows those who wish to partake in the activities to do so. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think this goes a bit too far. I'm fine restricting XfDs, but its not really April Fools Day if we're not allowed to have any interaction with the Wikipedia bureaucracy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment We already prohibit mainspace April Fools Day jokes and this proposal explicitly exempt the front page. A number of editors raise concerns about reliability and truthfulness, but I don't believe this proposal will have any impact on Wikipedia's encyclopedic content; it is aimed squarely at behind the scenes stuff. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Excessive. I may be willing to support this if April Fools Day 2021 is similarly chaotic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The idea behind this is understandable, but less drastic measures should be attempted to remedy issues before pulling out the sledgehammer. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - My general assumption is that confining to Wikipedia:April Fools only would mean less admins needing to delete unfunny crap and less editors needing to clean up around the place however one could easily create Wikipedia:April Fools 2021/April Fools is so funny also this title is really long also I like toast etc etc .... so maybe admins would still be needed here maybe more than yesterday .....,

Given the XFDs were mostly unfunny or regurgitated tripe from last year I'd prefer confining to here so that people can still enjoy it and yet not disrupt the project/admins/editors. –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. While this perhaps won't happen for a year or two yet, this is my preferred outcome. Not only have the jokes not been funny at all in several years – which is itself a sufficient reason to support – Wikipedia is increasingly viewed as a serious aggregation of knowledge in an age where truth is scarce and valuable. ("Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet" -WIRED) It's time to start acting like it. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per L235. In an era of fake news and other dangerous POV reporting, it's our job to maintain a verified and NPOV summary on topics at all times. Deviating from that, even for one day, is not conducive to the purpose of the project and it simply wastes editor's time. April Fool's Day can legitimately be used to highlight humorous but true topics - things that look like April Fools but aren't, such as Template:POTD/2019-04-01 - but we shouldn't go out of our way to do that, and it shouldn't happen if it's edging out legitimate contenders for a main page slot, as was indicated at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests/Archive_18#2017_April_Fool_TFA.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this proposal will really promote NPPOV or truthfulness. We already ban most mainspace pranks and this proposal specifically exempts jokes on the front page. The only content it will affect is stuff readers will never see. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Don’t think we’re at the point where we need this just yet. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Emma Goldman (1931). I understand Wikipedia has a reputation to uphold; that's why we long ago agreed to keep it out of mainspace so that we don't mislead readers. April Fools as a tradition started hundreds of years ago, and I doubt any reporter will be so dense as to see us making inside jokes for 24 hours on an international day of joking and think we've all abandoned the pursuit of knowledge. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I would not exempt the main page and instead have alternate versions placed within the contained area. Let people focus on coming up with funnier jokes without duplicating ones from past years, instead of spending time figuring out how to slip them into the site in a non-disruptive manner. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Way too excessive, and where's all the fun? What if some WikiProject wants to have a bit of humor? TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 08:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. While I agree with the ban on joke AfDs, etc, this is too restrictive. April jokes not only mark the day per se, but also serve as a tool to cheer regular editors and readers, venting out all negative feelings once a year. Brandmeister^talk 08:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this is too far. It is not much fun having a 'click here to view some April Fools stuff', better to have them intregated (and flagged with something like {{humour}} or {{April Fools}}) into other parts of WP, where we can poke fun at WP's bureaucracy (please don't change the bureaucracy, it's great). >>BEANS X2t 09:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, same reason as everyone else. 'Put in your April Fools prank in the April Fools pranks section!' sort of defeats the purpose of an April Fools prank. GoodCrossing (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't even get the point of this, as it seems like overkill. Kind of like using a tsunami to extinguish your stove. epicgenius (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as unnecessary, overkill, and also practically unenforceable. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is straightforwardly insane. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks reasonable to me. And would surely "minimise disruption of the rest of Wikipedia" which is undoubtedly a good thing. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the way it is currently worded implies that we cannot run April Fools DYKs. To me, it currently reads as either a sloppily worded suggestion or an attempt to abolish April Fools DYKs by the back door. For that reason, that I believe it is a cynical attempt to do that with DYK, I must oppose. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per The C of E. And, as Levivich said, it's practically unenforceable. You can't keep people from having fun on the April Fools' Day. What will you do, block all the jokers? --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If people want to make jokes, they will still have a place to do it … and those of who want to get on with work can do so without the intrusions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the discussion but I've another proposal: Let the Department of Fun organise and monitor the April Fools events every year. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought this was already done; oppose to the extent that it results in ownership and Esperanzaing; their monitoring should not override global consensus. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per John M Wolfson * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per John M Wolfson. But I do see there being a role for the Department of Fun in helping April Fools' Day run better. They could help coordinate larger-scale jokes or help better police pages to separate good jokes from not-good ones. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per John M. I really don't like giving a single wikiproject ownership over a traditionally community-wide event. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per John M Wolfson, I sort of see it as DoF babysitting everyone / acting as a nursery for the day. –Davey2010^Talk 10:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per John M Wolfson. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per others, but let the DoF help organise everything / serve as a WikiProject April Fools. >>BEANS X2t 09:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:OWN. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's the same thing all over again. Unanimous concensus. Why force us be involved in the DoF to do do April Fools activities? {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 16:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]