MarioWiki talk:BJAODN/Luigi's Mansion

Necessary?
Is this page really necessary, seeing as most of the stuff on here is just regular old flowery writing? 16:04, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
 * But it's laughable flowery writing :P It's really just an archive of how poorly things were taken care of back then. Some pages still need work. 16:06, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
 * Then why don't we archive every page that has had large amounts of flowery writing in the past into BJAODN? The page histories work perfectly well as archives, we don't need to put garden-variety fluff into an archive specifically meant for funny writing. 16:10, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
 * Just the fact that it was nearly every Luigi's Mansion room article that had this problem is what makes it worth keeping, I think. I don't know what led to keeping it all, but the theme was probably the reason. Level articles for Mario games, for example, don't have this problem (I know because I wrote a majority of them). 16:13, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
 * And it was because almost all of the room and Portrait Ghost articles were written by a single user (, if I'm remembering correctly), back in 2006-ish, when writing guidelines weren't as strict (Good writing didn't even exist back then) that they were all atrocious. It's not like the entire userbase made them atrocious well after creation, which would be good BJAODN material. 16:21, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
 * May I also note that most if not all of the Mario RPG enemies' articles were written just as poorly, if not worse, than the LM room articles, and yet they're not archived here and this is. 12:34, October 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * I'd say keep the BJAODN. I love the Luigi's Mansion archive of bjaodn Results May Vary (talk) 13:15, October 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Voting to keep: if other games are "not archived here" it's because people have yet to submit those + we don't have enough submissions of stuff specifically centered around a given game to justify their own sub-page like this one - it may not help that a lot of what makes RPG articles bad runs together often. "X game isn't here but Y game is" is not particularly good grounds for deletion, though (clarifying edit: it's the presumption that BJADON is an obligate archive of every single piece of old writing ever to have existed, rather than the ones that users deemed to be notable and/or funny enough), and I'm not seeing anything that makes it non-BJADON nonsense - its only crime is being mostly composed of one specific type of ridiculously silly writing.


 * As to the "RPG articles aren't archived here" claim itself, ah... hello?????? -- 22:43, October 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * I meant that they didn't have a "" page, I wasn't clear on that, sorry. 22:57, October 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * Then that goes back to the rest of what I said - not enough submitted examples (and thus nothing to make a subpage with, as I so eloquently and efficiently put it 6_9), and not much necessity in it unless someone really wants to go to the trouble. -- 23:12, October 24, 2019 (EDT)

I fail to understand the point of this article, and I feel the same way about any BJAODN article that consists of nothing but flowery writing. Overdramatic prose can be funny in small doses, but entire articles consisting of nothing but that are tedious. BJAODN would be a complete mess if we archived every single bit of fluff ever to have been slapped onto an article. Just take the actual funny parts and put them on other BJAODN articles. 19:33, November 26, 2019 (EST)


 * ...so anything people want to add to this discussion? It's kinda hit a wall. -- 20:15, January 18, 2020 (EST)

In hindsight, I would agree that the "flowerly page" like this and Shadow Queen just aren't funny and were the result of me (and perhaps other editors, but mostly me) being insecure re the site's reputation for bad writing and overcompensating. Rereading this page, the only entries I got a chuckle from were Old Clockworks and the 2nd half of the Vincent Van Gore one.

At the same time, humour is so subjective I could see someone finding funny in the wooden prose and ham-handed drama of the rest, enough that I don't really feel comitting to the "yeah delet this" side either. But that's my take. --Glowsquid (talk) 21:22, January 18, 2020 (EST)


 * Mm, yeah, pretty reasonable take all around. That said, would it be safe to remove the delete template since it seems the discussion was otherwise tabled for the time being? -- 22:42, January 18, 2020 (EST)