Wikipedia talk:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2014

Sigh

I've never done anything April-Fooley here (not my cup of tea) but I considered doing this year. I just created a normal article, Hitler's Thirty Days to Power. However, I only did this because I was inspired by the title to create an evil but morbidly "funny" version (depending on what you find "funny").

I considered posting it to mainspace (for the short time it would exist until found and redacted), but I decided that'd be a little extra work for someone, and I agree that it's not a good idea to post silly stuff in mainspace even on April 1. I wish we could have a little more sense of fun around here though. But granted, one person's "being funny" is another person's "being an unfunny obnoxious twit" so that doesn't scale that well to large and diverse communities I guess. Still, while granting that actual jokes are not necessarily all that great, a general free-floating sense of fun and not taking everything so seriously is functional here, I think.

So, was I a wimp for not posting that article, or would I have been an asshole if I had? Herostratus (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Wimp

The world needs more good faith efforts to brighten things up. You are probably lucky too, since some folks seem to be more interested in rules made in the past than laying an irresistible table for the future. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither

• You just followed rules, even if you weren't aware of them. See WP:Rules for Fools. CodeCat (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• On one hand, you followed WP:Rules for Fools like CodeCat said, since you're not supposed to AF the article namespace. On the other, WP:BOLD is always a good thing, and if the article was at least somewhat legit, you might be alright (I actually created a page on accident (long story) a little while ago and was sure that it'd be AfD'd, but instead it's been slightly improved by other editors without any issues). Rules for Fools is the best that's been come up with as a compromise between the jokesters and the stick-in-the-muds, so it's good to follow them. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Lucky

• Yeah, you probably would have been blocked. ansh666 21:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Articles for Deletion

I created Wikipedia: Articles for Articles for Deletion as an April Fools' joke since I was bored (it's a place where people can nominate articles that they think should be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to be considered for deletion), but it's past April Fools' Day in Wikipedia time (it isn't yet in mine), so I'm not sure whether it still counts or not. It's just in my userspace because I don't know whether I would have been allowed to actually create it or not, but if it would be allowed, someone could move it out of there. If it doesn't count as an April Fools' thing for this year, I'll probably just have it deleted. Alphius (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You might raise some questions from other editors if you do it outside of April Fools Day (Heh...AfD's are common on AFD) on Wikipedia Standard Time, but for the most part, you'll be alright. Nice alternate AfD page by the way, looks like it might last as a permanent WP:HUMOR page. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Alphius (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Meh

I missed April fools this year. But looking at the summary, it was kinda crap. Maybe we should have changed the main page... TitusFox^'Tribs 17:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was changed (Disco Demolition Night, anyone?). Is that not on the list? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We should add to the rules page that you only get to judge the crap quotient if you contributed, be your contribution crap or not crap. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)