Scratch Wiki talk:April Fools

Question about the rule on talk pages

Resolved (since 05:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC))

I know it's not allowed to create an AF page for article talk pages, but is it allowed to make one for a user talk page?
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 04:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No, as they are still talk pages that aren't the Community Portal. The rule applies to talk pages for all namespaces. I also feel like this would suit S:NOAF's talk page better.
Dhuls (Talk|927 Contributions|Scratch) 05:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A new namespace suggestion

Unresolved (see all...)

A large amount of the pages in the Scratch Wiki: namespace are April Fools pages, which there are around a few hundred of. I think the April Fools pages could be moved to a new namespace (such as April Fools: ) to 'declutter' the Scratch Wiki namespace and/or make the placement of these pages more organised.

The explanation page and the page stating which parts of the wiki should not have joke equivalents should stay in the Scratch Wiki: namespace (the suggested namespace is for the joke pages to go, I think pages about how the Scratch Wiki's April Fools Day pages work should stay in their original namespace).
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 06:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Support, but how would we move them all, since MediaWiki only allows the moving of 100 subpages at a time? Would we use something like the moveBatch.php maintenance script?
Dhuls (Talk|927 Contributions|Scratch) 06:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

   I agree, this sounds like a good idea, unless there's some technical reason not to move them (but I feel like you would know more about that than me). There are a lot of April Fool's pages and I think the Scratch Wiki namespace should be reserved for more "serious" wiki stuff.
Groko13 / talk / contribs 04:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Support. This should keep the Scratch Wiki namespace containing only important stuff and the new namespace containing the unserious April Fools' pages.
  TheTrillion • Talk • 2,624 contributions • Scratch  15:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Inconclusive, more input is needed. I am personally a bit reluctant to say "yes" or "no" because of some unanswered and/or unclear points that I spotted:

• First of all, moving all April Fools to another namespace may mean a fundamental change in Scratch Wiki's policies regarding namespaces, and may raise the questions again for user-generated namespaces, which has been an unsettled discussion since a long while. While it's not very hard to move them to new namespace for bureaucrats (as it was done before on Test Wiki due to some reasons), this would indeed require the final discretion of bureaucrats and unanimous decision made by the community.
• Second, is it really important enough that we need to change it and will provide the same results as it was before on the Scratch Wiki namespace? This question is actually linked to the first point raised above, and if we assume "different namespaces require different policies to not to cause them being too similar", this will mean that the rules should be rewritten, at least partly. (though we have one at the page but it is still bound by Scratch Wiki namespace rules) To quote the help page about namespaces:

“

4: Scratch Wiki This is a content namespace that is normally used for meta-discussions related to the operation and development of the wiki. It has no special properties.

”

Even though it's apparent that it is not having special purposes, it is primarily reserved for "meta-discussions related to the operation and development of the wiki", which April Fools pages would (because it's for operation in 1st April and includes guidelines about it) and would not (because it's for joke purposes and doesn't affect the development at all) be counted as that depending on interpretation.

• Decluttering is not always requiring a notable change, like the Community Portal. Community Portal is actually turned out to be relatively navigable from the boxes and Table of Contents even though it has around 100 archive pages + Not Done + around 20000 characters on the page itself.
   ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory  22:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say  No support. I think this would be more trouble than it's worth for such a minor problem.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 22:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Support. There are nearly 500 subpages, and that's enough to deserve their own namespace.
ssvbxx (talk | 416 contributions | Scratch profile) 01:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Super Duper Support! becuase I was thinking about this and then it will make it better! also, we could make it so you can not make talk pages as well on it. Also I am  Waiting... for more reply's

MyScratchedAccount 👩‍💼Userspace - 💬Talk Page - ✏️Edits - 👧Scratch Profile

 Support. I agree! (side note why are we using {{Done}} for support stuff?)
Gatgatcode ( Talk | Scratch | Contributions ) 01:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Support. There's so many April Fools articles that I believe it's very deserving of its own namespace.
minikiwigeek2 (talk, contributions ⁽⁵³³⁾, scratch) 23:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support only if there is an easy way to mass-move pages. Redirects should also be left behind, especially on AF template pages.
Abdavark (talk | contribs) 23:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Discourage users from only contributing to April Fools pages

Resolved (since 18:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC))

I think it is very easy for a user to only contribute to April Fools pages, and they do not seem as constructive as mainspace edits (as the April Fools pages are jokes (and therefore contributing to them uses less effort than mainspace edits) and they will only be visible to casual Scratch Wiki readers on April 1st). I think users should be discouraged from only or making too many April Fools edits, so their edits overall could be more constructive.

I am not trying to monopolise April Fools edits, nor am I trying to make any editor that only edits April Fools pages look bad.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 06:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems easier said than done. How do you propose we do this?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it could be mentioned on this page or something stating that users should contribute to mainspace and not only userspace and/or April Fools Pages could be added to the normal Wiki Guidelines.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 15:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

How would we enforce that though? If we leave talk page messages they could ignore them, and the only real recourse would be blocking them. I think blocking users over something like that would be overkill and also probably unfair, and regardless a waste of bureaucrat time in handling appeals emails and other work related to the block process.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that not contributing to mainspace should result in a block, but I think it should be highly recommended that users contribute to more than just the April Fools pages, on the April Fools information page instead of the Wiki Guidelines.

last edited 06:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 17:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jammum per principles, but I also suspect there wouldn't be enough activity on the English Scratch Wiki without April Fools' pages. Of course, this wiki is primarily and especially intended for documentation about Scratch and related programming features, but this doesn't prohibit only editing userspace or only participating in discussions as long as it's not disruptive, while the users are highly encouraged to edit content pages on the mainspace.
 ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory  12:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

 No support. As one who only contributes to many non-mainspace pages, there is not much you can do on the main-space due to the constant fact that we do not have much content left to add.
LokiBlaster | Talk Page | Contributions 14:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@LokiBlaster: By saying that you are a user who "only contributes to many non-mainspace pages", you're basically contradicting yourself with Jammun's original post in which they say "[non-mainspace edits] do not seem as constructive". Also, your statement "we do not have much content left to add" is not true. There are tons of changes being made every day - to mainspace pages - adding to articles, fixing small things, etc.; there are lots of ways you could help out to. Special:Random can help you find a page you might want to actually contribute to.
KangaCoder ( talk • contribs • scratch ) 21:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Involving this, I think April Fools pages could be hidden by default in Recent Changes, if possible, to encourage newer users to contribute to mainspace more (an option to view AF pages in Recent Changes could be toggleable).
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 16:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I partially agree with Jammum's solution above, but I don't think it would be very effective. We could perhaps state on the Wiki Guidelines that we 'Discourage only editing April Fools pages' and that 'We try to encourage users to edit on the mainspace as much as possible'. Therefore, it doesn't have to be an enforced rule, just a recommendation.
Filmlover12 Talk Contribs Scratch 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jammum: Just to note, I think the solution you have proposed is just too much of hassle for something that small. And, in addition to that, the April Fools page is always accessible via the thumbnail at the top right of relevant page.
 ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory  18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Mainspace edits are much more productive than April Fools edits (as the AF pages are shown 1/365 as much). We should encourage users to contribute to mainspace, but we shouldn't force users to do anything or discourage April Fools editing.
CrazyBoy826 | Talk | 8,247 edits | Scratch 21:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a bot should be made which detects AF edits and mainspace edits. If a user makes say, 7 AF edits in a row, they can be given a notification telling them to contribute to the mainspace as well. Then again, this might not be needed as only about 25 users only contribute to AF space. Also, I kinda agree with LokiBlaster. There are not many mainspace articles which need editing. Nowadays most edits are in userspace and the community portal.
Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 16:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't think that having users who only contribute to April Fools pages is a problem, as they do not reduce the amount of work done on mainspace articles much. Also, the huge number of april fools edits only occurs for 1-2 months per year (before April Fools). However, I think there is still a lot of work to do on mainspace. Most articles documenting Scratch are good right now, but we still need to work on adding more tutorials. More users will be looking for tutorials than for documentation of the Scratch editor or website, so tutorials will attract more pageviews and possibly more new users.
CrazyBoy826 | Talk | 8,247 edits | Scratch 22:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Super No Support People love jokes and the joke does not stop.
MyScratchedAccount (talk | contribs) 07:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jammum I would  Support this, considering there is a wiki editor that recently joined who mostly edits AF pages.
ninjahanzo ( Talk | Contribs | Scratch ) 14:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Support — AF pages are only really for jokes; the Scratch Wiki's purpose is to provide information about Scratch, so only editing AF pages kind of defeat the purpose of the Scratch Wiki itself. This is not to say that editing AF pages are a problem, though.
Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 14:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Marking as resolved due to the recent implementation of time locks (April Fools editing is only possible between March 1st and April 1st). If more restrictions are wanted can always start a new discussion, but this discussion was done in the context of 'no restrictions'.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 18:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The "Citation Needed" Template

If I put the citation needed template in an April Fools page, does that mean that the page lacks a reference or that can be just a joke?
EddyTheFox12 (talk | contribs) 07:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

April Fools pages do not need legitimate references, so it mostly means that it is mark as needing a reference as a joke. To mark a sentence as needing a reference as a joke on these AF pages, the April Fools version og the template ({{Scratch Wiki:April Fools/Template:Citation needed}}) is to be used.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 14:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Actual warning template?

Is there a template for April Fools articles that tries to make it clear that "Hey, you REALLY shouldn't do this"? What I mean is some sort of out-of-character warning template for if an April Fools article says to do something bad or dangerous, like (for instance) deleting your account or sharing a project that breaks CG.
Abdavark (talk | contribs) 16:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Similarly-titled pages

Some time ago, I tagged some April Fools' pages, such as Scratch Wiki:April Fools/Color Picker (1.4) with the Not Useful template, as version-disambiguated pages have too similar titles and could be used to duplicate another April Fools' page. Should those pages be deleted?
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 21:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Changes involved in April Fools Day:

1. Found every AFD page whose real page did not exist (only a few) marked for deletion
2. Found every AFD page whose real page was a redirect (usually a page move that didn't result in the AFD page move) and moved either the source or target page as appropriate; most of these were (block) pages but a few others
3. Found every AFD page whose real page did not have the April Fools template, and added one
4. Every time an AFD template is changed, copy the change.
5. Every time an AFD page is changed, purge the cache of the original page.

Unresolved issues

• Some pages, like user signature subpages, have April Fools versions and break if treated like normal pages, and would need special casing to treat like templates. Is this worth it?
• Some pages, like the TOC, are both accessed directly and transcluded. This means you have to account for *four* different versions of *one* page.
• Some pages are protected and can't have April Fools added or removed (or grant editing to protected pages)
• Some AFD user pages are broken, but can't be changed due to the filter.
• Sometimes the original page is changed in a way that makes the AFD version no longer work as intended, in ways that can't easily be checked automatically.
  Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 21:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning kaj is still allowed, right?

@jvvg, you edited some content in the rules to make the rule on mentioning users more strict, but you also removed the thing about mentioning kaj. That's still allowed, right?
Abdavark • Talk • Contributions • Scratch 21:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Abdavark Going forward, new mentions of Kaj will not be allowed, as unfortunately they were abused way too much in the past. Some existing uses may be grandfathered.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)