MarioWiki talk:BJAODN: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
This page kinda sucks. I mean, seriously, the page is all jumbled up, and it's hard to even tell where one section ends and the next begins. And, many(if not most) are only funny if you have prior knowledge, or they aren't funny at all. The little "notes" after each of the sections are almost always in different format, and some are just... stupid, like "Unique". That's not funny, and it's just random(not necessarily humourous), short, sections lying around, that the editor thought was funny, but not anyone else. Like, it's embarrasing just to put that on the welcome template, and show it to new users. And, embarrasing, not because of what the vandals did, but rather the way the page is made. Like, "Yoshi's Story (N64) Stage" doesn't look like BJAODN, just because; it wasn't made out of stupidness, but rather looks like an effort of someone trying to write an article; most likely an inexperienced newbie. Honestly... is there a point/purpose of this page? {{User:Garlic Man/sig}} Another one is "Koopaling"; there was actually nothing wrong with that statement, but yet someone said "Don't do this"; that's discouraging other users of doing something that's not wrong at all; Sir Grodus just recognized it as a perverse statement. It would be like saying "Never use the word 'balls' in articles." Like, just because it could loosely imply something doesn't mean it's "wrong". | This page kinda sucks. I mean, seriously, the page is all jumbled up, and it's hard to even tell where one section ends and the next begins. And, many(if not most) are only funny if you have prior knowledge, or they aren't funny at all. The little "notes" after each of the sections are almost always in different format, and some are just... stupid, like "Unique". That's not funny, and it's just random(not necessarily humourous), short, sections lying around, that the editor thought was funny, but not anyone else. Like, it's embarrasing just to put that on the welcome template, and show it to new users. And, embarrasing, not because of what the vandals did, but rather the way the page is made. Like, "Yoshi's Story (N64) Stage" doesn't look like BJAODN, just because; it wasn't made out of stupidness, but rather looks like an effort of someone trying to write an article; most likely an inexperienced newbie. Honestly... is there a point/purpose of this page? {{User:Garlic Man/sig}} Another one is "Koopaling"; there was actually nothing wrong with that statement, but yet someone said "Don't do this"; that's discouraging other users of doing something that's not wrong at all; Sir Grodus just recognized it as a perverse statement. It would be like saying "Never use the word 'balls' in articles." Like, just because it could loosely imply something doesn't mean it's "wrong". | ||
:Sounds like someone needs some laughing gas. {{User:Pikax/sig}} 13:12, 19 August 2008 (EDT) | :Sounds like someone needs some laughing gas. {{User:Pikax/sig}} 13:12, 19 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
XD [[User:Slucario|Slucario]] 13:12, 19 August 2008 (EDT) |
Revision as of 12:12, August 19, 2008
They say that nothing is perfect, but this certainly is a strong contender. 20:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
- Is there any rule for sorting this? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- No. --Blitzwing 14:40, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- We should add the World 2-1 (NSMB)-article. It's simply "world 2-1". ;) --PaperStriker 16:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- Wouldn't alphabetical sorting do the job? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 18:43, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- Yep, but I'm too lazy to alphabetize the whole thing. --Blitzwing 18:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- No. --Blitzwing 14:40, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Er, MarioWiki:BJAODN#Koopaling isn't an error. Look up "intercourse".Greenpickle 13:56, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
- Indeed. No typo, a badly chosen term at the most. I removed it. Time Questions 14:10, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
- I reverted your edits. Yes, it's a badly choosen word - That's even the whole freakin' point! While it is technically coorect, you can't deny it sound odd considering the context. --Blitzwing 15:10, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
- Ok, the context... I don't find it funny, but some surely will, so I guess it can stay. Discussing what's funny and what's not is the worst we could do, after all. (Still, Sir Grodus' note calling it a "typo" is useless in my opinion - I mean, it isn't a typo.) Time Questions 15:19, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
- Maybe, but he's right about the "Sick" part. --Blitzwing 15:29, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
- Another suggestion: Donkey Kong Plus So games are male now!?
PaperStriker
- That simply looks like written by a non-native speaker of English. Any kind of objects may be of male of female grammatical gender in a lot of languages, mind you. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
- Toadette's one is also weird. Unhappy is a perfect word, that method of talking is called Litotes. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 09:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- Another suggestion: Donkey Kong Plus So games are male now!?
PaperStriker
- Maybe, but he's right about the "Sick" part. --Blitzwing 15:29, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
- Ok, the context... I don't find it funny, but some surely will, so I guess it can stay. Discussing what's funny and what's not is the worst we could do, after all. (Still, Sir Grodus' note calling it a "typo" is useless in my opinion - I mean, it isn't a typo.) Time Questions 15:19, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
- I reverted your edits. Yes, it's a badly choosen word - That's even the whole freakin' point! While it is technically coorect, you can't deny it sound odd considering the context. --Blitzwing 15:10, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Quote
My quote is about the tag with the spelling error on Toadette page. (I know unhappy was spelled right.) Princess Grapes Butterfly 15:52, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
- If you're quoted wrong anywhere, feel free to remove it. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:55, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Really sweet! Princess Grapes Butterfly 16:01, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Life Shroom
The text sounds strange... but I don't understand a single word of it. I have played Paper Mario and can confirm that only Life Shroom is a Life Shroom. (and Pirate Goomba is a...) - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:11, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
- I think it was trying to say that you can use the "useless flora" to cook Life Shrooms as items. I don't have Paper Mario so i dunno if it's possible. --Blitzwing 16:33, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
What's bad about the Luigi one? It doesn't sound bad to me. CrystalYoshi 18:32, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
- Weeeell, it's worded rather stupidly "Luigi hates King Boo a lot". --Blitzwing 18:46, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Organization
If we are going to do this, let's do it right. How does everyone feel about splitting the page into two sections: Articles and Proposals. Move everything to it's proper place and alphabetize. Objections? -- Chris 20:19, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
- Weeelll, that how they did it at Wikipedia (They separated it between weird thing seen the sandbox, April Fool Jokes and article vandalism), but currently, there's only three (rather short) proposals worth archiving, and separating BJAODN in different section would perhaps be giving it too much importance. --Blitzwing 07:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
I kinda agree with Blitzwing. But you COULD make different sections on this page; split apart the Articles and Proposals. My Bloody Valentine
- So your position is that we are both right. Thanks, DP, that's real helpful. -_- -- Chris 12:00, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Buzzy Beetle shell
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Tutankoopa use Buzzy Beetle shells as weapons in Paper Mario?--Kahran042 09:28, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, he did. The article could actually be created. Though in the state it was first, it's of course nonsense. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Baby on Wii
Credit goes to me for finding it, Blitzwing for nominating it as BJAODN worthy, and Plumber for adding it. Master Lucario The Aura is with me...
The archive is open for anyone to edit, as long as the added content answers one golden criteria: It must be funny.
I have two promblems with that sentence. Firstly, everyone has opinions on what is funny. The article currently says that, but that doesn't really help much by just saying it. Plus, it says it's free for editing, doesn't this mean people are able to add new stuff. Like muh Gorge joke? HyperToad
- Only stuff that was actually once put into an article is allowed. And I don't think it would make sense to define "funny". That's why it says there shall not be an edit war because of discrepancies of what is funny or not. Time Questions 09:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
- About your second point, this Wikipedia essays explains why I odmitted to add that rather obvious piece of information. And your first point doesn't makes sense, the rules themsleves says that "funny" can't be defined, so why are you whining about it? --Blitzwing 11:34, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Samantha Mathis?
The article is neither a bad joke nor deleted nor nonsense. It's only short. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
- Eh, try to check it back, there's something you missed. Hint: It's in bold. --Blitzwing 16:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Beezo
I really don't see anything wrong with it, other than the weird Waluigi picture.--Kahran042 08:21, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
I think the picture was for the Baby Waluigi one. Palkia47
Yeah, I fixed it now. My Bloody Valentine I don't see anything wrong with Beezo either, really. The only thing that seems bad is the latter formatting...
- The thnin with Beezo is that the wording is completly screwed up ("They have wings on their back: Capable of flying". Did any of you actually read it :|? --Blitzwing 11:44, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
Sir Grodus
It's a simple misuse of the apostrophe:
It is a chance that the fish are Sir Grodus'
It should be this instead:
It is a chance that the fish are Sir Grodus's
Meaning "There is a chance that the fish are belonging to Sir Grodus".
I didn't find that notable for BJAODN. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
- I know that guy meant that the fish are belonging to Sir Grodus, but it's still a pretty WTF'ish mistake. Well, at least I know that another user was WTF-ed by it. --Blitzwing 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Urgh...gving me headaches
Do we really need to blabber SO much on a deleted nonsense page? seriously...
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Negative Squad (talk).
- On wut? The page itself or the talkpage? --Blitzwing 17:27, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
- ...Why yes, we DO need to blabber on a deketed nonsense talkpage if blabbering is needed to decide what goes in the article.GreenKoopa - Comments or questions?
Personal comments
I think we should only allow personal comments on the page that were directly related to the listed page. Such as discussed on the talk page on that specific article, or in edit summaries on that page. If everyone gives in their opinion here, then (sorry) the page will get too long. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah. We could also allow comments explaining the jokes/error. --Blitzwing 12:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
How About This Picture
I found it under Uncatorigized Images-User:Nerdy Guy
- It's a personal image that was shown to the user "Coincollector". Judging by the user name and the contents of the image, I don't think that ever was intended for the wiki. It's neither a bad joke nor deleted nor nonsense. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
For the lack of a better word...
This page kinda sucks. I mean, seriously, the page is all jumbled up, and it's hard to even tell where one section ends and the next begins. And, many(if not most) are only funny if you have prior knowledge, or they aren't funny at all. The little "notes" after each of the sections are almost always in different format, and some are just... stupid, like "Unique". That's not funny, and it's just random(not necessarily humourous), short, sections lying around, that the editor thought was funny, but not anyone else. Like, it's embarrasing just to put that on the welcome template, and show it to new users. And, embarrasing, not because of what the vandals did, but rather the way the page is made. Like, "Yoshi's Story (N64) Stage" doesn't look like BJAODN, just because; it wasn't made out of stupidness, but rather looks like an effort of someone trying to write an article; most likely an inexperienced newbie. Honestly... is there a point/purpose of this page? Marcelagus (T • C • E) Another one is "Koopaling"; there was actually nothing wrong with that statement, but yet someone said "Don't do this"; that's discouraging other users of doing something that's not wrong at all; Sir Grodus just recognized it as a perverse statement. It would be like saying "Never use the word 'balls' in articles." Like, just because it could loosely imply something doesn't mean it's "wrong".
XD Slucario 13:12, 19 August 2008 (EDT)