Talk:Poop

Why not have Poop as a redirect to here?


 * It seems like a good redirect guys...

Is that thing actually called "Poop" ingame? If yes, make a redirect, if no, don't. Gofer

....Err I think when O'Chunks says his Chunk words, he is referring to himself. Like if I'm right now punched in the face I would say "I have been Jorged!" or when I'm leaving I would say "JORGE AWAY!" Click here to see the universe. SuperLuigi821 Oh you let the hat out of the bag, Big Top!
 * Ya, should it be moved back?

Uh, I just played WarioWare: Touched!! and I went through the boss stage, like, a thousand times, and didn't see him get any poop. You may want to consider revising it...
 * Probably because you played the Western version where the poop is replaced with something else. --Grandy02 17:57, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Somebody requested an image for this page!? 18:54, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You're not the only one to have noticed. --Blitzwing 17:41, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Well, why not? --Grandy02 17:57, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I actually came to this page via Ragey's site. 01:16, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Hmmm....poop.I'm supposing using the curse word 4 it as a redirect will lead to an instant ban?This article is a troll's paradise...

I agree with NY. I think this page should be protected so only autoconfirmed users can edit it due to it's likeliness to be spammed. Yoshario'''

I thought you HAD TO BE A USER to edit any pages.U mean spammer IP users?
 * I think it means all new users can't edit the article (their account has to be a few days old first). I'll protect it now. Also, pertaining to your first question, "shit" is used in Conker's Bad Fur Day, but I'm not sure if that's significant enough to warrant a redirect. Even so, not making it yourself is a smart move, as it might seem sorta shifty. - 18:32, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I wouldn't use that expletive around the wiki due to the fact that I expect we may very young users browsing this wiki and since a proposal passed that banned swearing. Yoshario'''

"The Giant Poo Monster" (As it's called) in Bad Fur Day is made of "****" but since it's also called "poo", poo should maybe be a redirect.
 * Isn't it actually called The Great Mighty Poo? I don't remember a proposal about banning expletives, (I just remember a huge discussion about the Bob Hoskins article). Swearing at people is wrong, but so is censoring quotations on an encyclopedia. - 18:48, 26 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Exactly, on all points. --

Ur right..I remember on Wikipedia I found a random article about a way "an octopus does sexual activity on a women".I was scarred for life and know what?THERE WAS A PICTURE!!!!Worst random article.Evah.


 * Hmmm...probably related to shunga, or erotic ukiyo-e Japanese woodblock prints. That's the national artistic tradition Mario is coming out of. =P --  P.S. Off-topic, I know.

Uhm...I got an image of the POOP in Made in Wario. <---HERE User:Wolfenpilot687 03:29, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

History
Should this page cover all appearances of poop in a history section? Or would this be like covering random objects such as beds, windows and TV sets in separate articles? --Grandy02 14:09, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
 * No, it shouldn't. We really don't need yet another article that mixes objects from ten different games completely unrelated in their functions. We have enough Elephants already. A different question it would be if it was (collectively) officially named, but that isn't the case, so no. - 16:10, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have pages like Elephant? I kind of disagree, but it's an interesting issue. Intuitionally, I'd say that the Elephants page is fine, but I'm not so sure about an article covering all appearances of poop. Don't know how to reason that though. 16:48, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
 * There are already various random references to poop in this article. Should it be trimmed then? On the other hand, would we actually create a separate article on something generic like poop just because it appears in some mini-games? Of course, the gameplay-relevant appearance of "running poop" in Wario: Master of Disguise warrants an article (which was also the reason why the article was made), but the question is if the "normal" poop deserves more than a brief mention. The same can be said about Onigiri. It is a playable character in one game and thus deserves an article, but otherwise rice balls are just common food (in Japan), yet the article also informs about completely unrelated onigiri, such as food in Smash Bros.. --Grandy02 18:01, 17 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Is this name even official?Also, it's just a minor gameplay element, they don't play any special role.
 * So, should this be merged with Arty Wario? The other feces are just generic objects that are not more important than other generic stuff. --Grandy02 10:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree.


 * Actually, it plays an important role in WMOD as it is used to defeat a certain boss. I think it was called Barfatronic Lavanator or something like that.--

Paintings were playing important role, I created their article and it was removed. If we create an article about this barfatronic thing it will be very small, so merging it with arty wario is better.


 * Iemember, it was called the Barfatronic Lavachomper. The poop is needed to defeat the boss because it was the only thing small enough to be able to touch its uvila. I think it deserves to stay, and what paintings were you talking about? --

So it's the boss that was named like that...I was talking about the paintings in SM64. I still think it's should be merged with Arty Wario(just the WMOD one) and remove the usless unimportant gameplay elements.

Delete
DON'T DELETE 4-14

I say we delete this article because it is not a specific topic, item, ect. If unneeded objects are getting articles then we should have an article on air since that actually plays a role in some games, sort of works like an item, it allows Mario to be underwater without drowning of lack of air since it replenishes his air intake.

Proposer: Deadline: March 5, 2011, 22:45 GMT

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! Per proposal. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per Zero. I think this article is a bit unnecessary and inappropriate. Plus it doesn't have a real purpose in the games.
 * 3) An article about poop ? Seriously ? Sure, it has an use in Wario: Master of Disguise, but the stone blocks Arty Wario draws have a role too. Should they get their own article ? Hell, AIR has more uses in 3D Mario games, and I'm pretty sure nobody wants an article about air.
 * 4) Per Tails. No real purpose.

Oppose

 * 1) - A bunch if the WarioWare stuff seems vague and on it own, unnecessary, but the reject-drawing poop in Wario: Master of Disguise sounds like it has a perfectly valid function in the game (it destroys enemies, to name one function).
 * 2) - Read above discussion. Why do we even have such a proposal? :/
 * 3) - Your reasoning is flimsy. Your comparison with air, while making no coherent sense whatsoever, doesn't even begin to overturn any of the points made in the previous discussions that kept this article from being deleted.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all. Poop is used in lots of WarioWare games and its funny!
 * 7) Per Walkazo, Gamefreak75 and Edofenir.
 * 8) It isn't a vandalism page and besides it is a funny article LOL.
 * 9) It's a surprisingly quality and necessary article, despitte the subject matter.
 * 10) I think "Poop is a great article, keep it. (per all)
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) Usually, Poop is disgusting, but this is the one in a WarioWare video game. Per all.
 * 13) Poop is an ITEM in the WarioWare series, and, however disgusting, is as deserving of its article as a Mushroom or Fire Flower. Per all.
 * 14) You cant delete an article just because you find it gross. If you can, let's delete Wario and everything else related to him (Forget what I said, we could just merge it to Arty Wario, but that still means I'm against deleting).

Comments
I am Zero! That's true but that can easily be mentioned in the gameplay part of Wario: Master of Disguise article. Zero signing out.

I am Zero! That discussion was unresolved and never came to a conclusion. Zero signing out.


 * @Tails777: Plus it doesn't have a real purpose in the games.
 * It's obvious somebody doesn't bother to read the article, specifically the WMoD section.

I read the article just now and I still don't see the real purpose. It's just an object used in some Warioware microgames.


 * Doopliss101: LOL I love the funny name, despite its name, it isn't a vandalism page and is relevant to the Mario series.

Air has more of a role in Mario games than... this. It heals back Mario in Super Mario 64, and the lack of air in Hazy Mazy Cave's poisoned maze makes him lose health too (same goes for when he's underwater). Air blows Mario away in SM64 (again) and makes him lose his hat, making him weaker. It does more things than poop. If Poop deserves an article, Air deserves one too. Koopalmier 04:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)
 * But that's a thing of nature, bound to be there. We need an article on air because of the lack of it in some places? Okay... We don't have an article on earth or water, and they play as much a role as air does, so we don't need one there. Poop plays more of a role than these things, as it is a solid object in the game, useful for something, and it's like some kind of ally to Wario. 05:53, 23 February 2011 (EST)
 * Grass or earth doesn't change anything, aside from the sound Mario's shoes make when he walks on it. Air deserves an article because it plays a role in gameplay (although "oxygen" would make more sense, even if there's oxygen underwater, but whatever). Even if I see what you mean, I still have to say than an article about poop is going a bit too far. Heck, half the article is about its appearance in WarioWare games. The only role it plays is hurting enemies and being able to destroy a few things in Master of Disguise, but then we should have a Stone Block article too. Or just put it in the Artsy Wario article. Koopalmier 17:13, 23 February 2011 (EST)
 * It's not going too far, it's a creature drawn by Wario, and, bychance, has other direct appearances too. Air appears indirectly. We're not even on the subject of an article about air in this talk page. Oh, and without earth, where would Mario be? 17:31, 23 February 2011 (EST)
 * This is getting BJAODNy real fast. Poop appears specifically in WarioWare while air, earth, etc. are just things that are there. It should be added to the poop article all this poopy poop of discussion that is unnecessary because the article is poop.

Why would someone compair Poop to Air? They're both important, but why would we need a pge about air? Poop, on the other hand, Is important in lots of Wario games, such as Master of Disguise. I mean, people like reading Poop! I mean don't compare stuff!
 * I know, why don't we just start comparing it to trees, dirt, mud, clouds[not Lakitu's], sky, underground, (I'm gonna say random stuff now just to show how ridiculous this is)coffee, inchworms, "Weird" Al Yankovic, dragons, styrofoam cups, Goldfish, the Axem Rangers, Marmaduke, sock monkeys, Oscar the Grouch, Jack Black, ice cubes, Snufit Ball, Pirate Goomba, etc. This is ridiculous and should stop!
 * Well played. While we're at it, let's make articles for apl.de.ap, Scyther, Johan Backlund, and Jerry Recycled Batteries! They're all apparently just as important to the Marioverse according to everyone here. (NO NOT REALLY!)

Delete the page
I think this article is pointless, and it is a big target for vandals. Even with Semi-Protection, we can just merge the content with the WarioWare article and a user who is autoconfirmed can still vandalize it if they "secretly" act like a good user until autoconfirmation. It just doesn't seem like an appropriate page for a wiki like this.

Proposer Deadline March 9, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Delete

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) I don't think it serves really any purpose. The most it does is to serve as one of the many projectiles Arty Wario can create (which is already described in Arty Wario's page). Otherwise, despite what the previous proposal has constantly stressed, it's only one of the many, many objects used in WarioWare games that has a self-explanatory purpose (in one micrograme, players must guide this thing to a toilet; in another, one uses it to scare away a crowd).
 * 3) The article is clearly padded out. How come the other objects Arty Wario can draw don't get their own articles? Honestly, I think this article is better off merged with Arty Wario's article, since that's the only purpose it serves: a projectile used specifically by Arty Wario to defeat some things.
 * 4) - Per Baby Luigi in the comments. The WarioWare twisted censorship can be mentioned on an eventual regional differences on that game's page (which really needfs to happen, as that game got quite changed up during localization).
 * 5) This article is just a conglomeration of appearances of poop that barely relate to one other besides the fact that they're poop. It seems really unnecessary to just list all of the appearances of an object that coincidentally happens to show up in a couple of games. Per all.
 * 6) ...Why... does this page even exist?? Per all! This is so pointless to have.
 * 7) Per Mario and Baby Luigi, as while I agree with the need for deletion, the original reasoning behind the proposal is extremely flawed and fails to account for the general purpose of vandalism and the fact that being a more frequent target indicates nothing else regarding the page itself.
 * 8) I think it pointless article on it's own plus it's in very poor taste.
 * 9) I always thought of this page as ridiculous. Get rid of it.
 * 10) This is a stupid page, let Shoop Da Whoop vaporize it with his lazer!

Keep

 * 1) Just because it is very targeted by vandals does not mean it should be deleted, and This is apart of a game.
 * 2) Per previous proposal.
 * 3) - Per the old proposal and discussions. The WarioWare censorship matter is quite interesting and worth writing about, and I still say the Wario: Master of Disguise stuff also gives the Poop article a valid reason to exist; I'd rather see pages made for Arty Wario's other items than see this deleted. And who cares if it's a target for vandals? The entire wiki's a target just by existing. Edits can be deleted with the push of a button; the only harm that would come of it is if we caved in and deleted perfectly valid information because of a few dumb trolls.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Who is going to bother waiting autoconfirmation in order to vandalize 1 page, when there are about 10000 other? Per Walkazo, nobody cares if it is a target. reverting isn't that hard. Per all.
 * 6) Ironic how I'm opposing it's delete since I supported it last time, but per Walkazo's reason here and the last proposal.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) This proposal again? Oy vey.
 * 9) It is what is is. Just because the name of this article isn't great, we shouldn't delete it. According to this logic, if there was a new character called "Pee," there should not be an article created for the character. This is a wiki (with the goal being to provide information), and we are not going to take away an article because of its name. Per all.

Comments
This page just seems stupid in general, and it should go on some low traffic wikia if anyone wants to look it up.

@Marshal Dan Troop-Uhh, if you say "Per proposal," why would you want to keep the page? 16:39, 23 February 2014 (EST)
 * I meant the previous proposal..

@Epic Rosalina: We don't delete articles because of how over the top they may seem. If Poop was like, some power-up Wario uses to get through a game, then maybe it doesn't deserve to get deleted, but since this article exists solely because of Arty Wario, I think it's a better idea to merge it because it's consistent with the other stuff Arty Wario draws. Hell, the description of poop in Arty Wario's article is MUCH better than what is written here. It describes what the projectile does in the shortest, most straightforward way you can, unlike what is written in this article, so therefore, this article's existence is just redundant. 16:53, 23 February 2014 (EST)

@Walkazo: but the censorship thing should be kept into the microgame articles itself. We don't need an article based on an insignificant object that was censored. And if people were to look for censored stuff, they'd search the microgame, not the object that got censored. I still believe it's better for all of Arty Wario's attacks be merged into his page because it's part of Arty Wario's ability and it's exclusive to him. 18:33, 23 February 2014 (EST)

@Walkazo: We shouldn't create extra pages for Arty Wario's other objects, especially if simply listing them in Arty Wario's page is fine (whereas Fireball at least is a special move AND it is used in many games). I don't think we should use this article as a vehicle for Japan-American censorship either; that can go in game version differences in the respective article. People will inevitably per you anyway, but it's just my argument. 18:36, 23 February 2014 (EST)


 * Well, something could be said on Block about how he makes blocks, and it's not clear on the Arty Wario page what the Heart even does to begin with. Plus, the Poop's censored in more than one microgame in more than one game (and then interestingly, is not censored in other games), so it's not just something that can be taken and placed somewhere else succinctly, it's a collection of info. - 18:48, 23 February 2014 (EST)
 * We can have a very brief mention of it in the Block article. Just because Arty Wario doesn't elaborate on what the heart does doesn't mean that the projectile can get its own page. And again, we shouldn't create an article about a frequently censored/altered object due to different cultures (the censoring is not limited to Mario/Wario games either). As Glowsquid said, we can list it as part of the regional differences. 18:55, 23 February 2014 (EST)
 * What I meant was, that maybe the Heart is worthy of a page - the Arty Wario coverage is so poor, you can't tell either way. And the censorship stuff is more like extra info, with the living W:MoD poop being the main reason for the page's relevance. I really fail to see the appeal of of deleting this page: it's not a generic subject, it's not a stub, it compiles info from various sources so it's not just an empty rehash, and last I checked, the idea was more the merrier when it comes to pages... - 11:21, 25 February 2014 (EST)
 * Um, I don't know about you, but I think poop is a pretty generic subject since the article itself just links all the times where it appears and they barely relate to each other. The only relevance it has is a projectile in Wario: Master of Disguise and even then, the description in Arty Wario article is much better than what is presented here. 20:20, 25 February 2014 (EST)
 * Besides, I don't think this page serves any practical purpose (who's going to search for poop in a MarioWiki, wondering what exactly it does? And those looking for more details about Arty Wario's projectiles will search for Arty Wario, not poop). Poop serves a self-explanatory purpose: of course you have to avoid it, of course you have to direct it to the toilet, and of course the crowd will be chased away from it. It's like Flower getting significant information from a Super Mario 64 DS minigame and a Mario Party Advance minigame, like people are wondering what a flower does. Oh, and Daisy uses flowers in her attacks. If it weren't for Flowers being a collectible for the Yoshi's Island games, Flower shouldn't get its own article. Most of this article is about a generic subject, being a loose conglomeration of appearances of poop in WarioWare games mostly. I don't see how Poop is so significant. All it does is be one of the many minor projectiles of Arty Wario and being removed in some microgames. 15:05, 26 February 2014 (EST)

Why would we have a page like this on a MARIO wiki? This isn't a site about poop! Besides, it does seem like a good idea to merge with Arty Wario powerups. 16:27, 26 February 2014 (EST)
 * Does that matter? We can have an article on vomit and flatulence just as long as it serves a meaningful gameplay purpose. 20:38, 27 February 2014 (EST)
 * You're looking at this from the wrong angle; you shouldn't want to delete an article because of what it is, you should want to delete an article because of what purpose it serves.

Still, if it doesn't have a purpose, then it can be deleted. 20:43, 27 February 2014 (EST)
 * That's why I'm supporting it. 20:44, 27 February 2014 (EST)
 * And that's the point that several of us are making.