MarioWiki talk:BJAODN

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? - 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? - 18:43, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yep, but I'm too lazy to alphabetize the whole thing. --Blitzwing 18:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Er, BJAODN isn't an error. Look up "intercourse". 13:56, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Indeed. No typo, a badly chosen term at the most. I removed it. 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.) 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!?
 * 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. - 16:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
 * True. If we put that here, we can put almost any grammatical mistake. And that's not the point of this page, I think. 06:38, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Toadette's one is also weird. Unhappy is a perfect word, that method of talking is called Litotes. - 09:56, 31 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. - 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...) - 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)
 * Whatever, "useless flora" is just too good to be not on this page. ;) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

What's bad about the Luigi one? It doesn't sound bad to me. 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)
 * Okay. It's not that funny, though, but that's my opinion. The torpedo ted one was funny...

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.
 * So your position is that we are both right. Thanks, DP, that's real helpful. -_- -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 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. - 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.

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. 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. - 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)
 * I bet 9,999,999 Mushroom Kingdom Coins  it was written by someone who doesn't speak English natively. - 16:35, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Yup. Especially since most job titles in English are genderless, it's easy to put that wrong. But I don't wanna discuss the validity or the funniness of this entry :P 17:10, 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.

Yeah, I fixed it now. 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. - 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)
 * Are you sure that's even a mistake? I always thought that if it ends in 's', there is no reason to put another 's' after the apostraphe. - Score under 16:52, 3 November 2008 (EST) My name is Score_Under. With an underscore, you silly wiki.

Urgh...gving me headaches
Do we really need to blabber SO much on a deleted nonsense page? seriously...
 * 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. - 12:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah. We could also allow comments explaining the jokes/error. --Blitzwing 12:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree. With both of your points. 14:43, 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. - 16:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Isaac Newton
Can I add |this to the BJAODN?
 * Well, it's pretty much an inexperienced user making an edit, and not reading the rules, so I guess no.
 * He copy it for Wikipedia. And I think that considered spam since its from another website. Ambidextria
 * Nevermind Blitzwing added it. Ambidextria

Why is Beezo Here?
I thought it was a enemy, Not a joke. I mean why is the entire article here? --
 * It's incredibly badly written. Try to work out this paragraph:

"Beezos attack by flying towards Mario or one of his friends using their pitchfork and then get within contact towards the character. They normally appear in packs as they proceed to attack the character that was played by the player. Beezos in packs endlessly appear on the screen; they won’t leave the character alone until the character leaves the current level the player is currently playing in."
 * - 08:11, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Nitro Honey Syrup
I Found this.

[...]Although Nitro Honey Syrup was never produced, recipes for it could apparently be found in the Ratooey Businessman's briefcase. Although it is, by normalcy, powerful enough to perform miraculous acts such as even raising the dead, Eat your heart out, Mrs. Butterworth.[...]

Can we add it? --
 * Yah. --Blitzwing 17:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Fourth Wall
I found this.

[...] When Bowser's Aerial Castle plunges into the ocean, Bowser hits the screen, cracking it, literally breaking the fourth wall! [...] Ambidextria
 * That's not dumb, it's just poorly-worded (But true). --Blitzwing 07:08, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Lolz. Ambidextria

I found another one

The Sweet Stuff
Aboard the Sweet Stuff
 * This is the tutorial

Ambidextria

What's funny/pathetic about this one is this was actually the entire contents of the page. 17:43, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Luigi
[...] Toad had really good terms with Luigi for a very long time. He gives him special items in Luigi's Mansion. Luigi and Toadette are actually secretly dating.[...] --
 * What a nonsense. Add it. - 17:31, 4 November 2008 (EST)

King Boo
[...]Apparently wearing a small crown is enough to make you king, but ones from Burger King aren't enough to make your girlfriend call you her majesty. I suppose that's another story.[...]

Can we add it?--


 * Yeah, if you keep finding these just add it, don't ask us!

Baby Birdo
Hmmm..she looks extremely similar to her older self, so.. can I add my pic? n_n
 * No, because we only allow stuff that was actually on the articles. There's a reason for why I replaced your picture with the one that was actually on the article --Blitzwing 06:36, 7 November 2008 (EST)

T,T ... Oh.... ;_;

Courtyard
[...]Luigi entered the Courtyard after defeating the evil phantasm Bogmire.[...]

What's wrong with this? 12:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)


 * No idea. 06:14, 31 December 2008 (EST)

The correct word is "phantom". "Phantasm" is both a series of horror flicks and was briefly one of the New Teen Titans. The Great Gonzales 16:27, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, "phantasm" can mean a "phantom" or an "apparition," so the word is correct. --

Notice the Spanish and French names of Ghostly Galaxy. 16:58, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Krazy Kremland
[...]Along with being rundown another negative feature about this B-class amusement park (bemusement park?) is that it is built on a swamp filled with critters and bramble vines[...]

("Wtf is THAT!? o_O") – Stooben Rooben

(...wtf? what type of name is a bemusement park wtf... wtf is that wtf.... wtf thats ugly.) – Super-Yoshi

(X_x What.. the.. heck. We have some sickos here. Ambidextria)

This too. I guess they're reacting to the word "bemusement," but to the best of my knowledge, that just means "confusion." I suppose it has some juvenile sexual connotation? 02:44, 31 December 2008 (EST)


 * Uhm, I think that's just a pun: it's an amusement park ("A-musement"), but it's B-class, so you could also call it "B-musement" (= bemusement) park. Don't know what S-Y and PGB mean by "ugly" and "sicko" though. 06:14, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Funniest Article
This article is so funny!

Comments
I think we should do something about the flood of comments on this page. Most of them are totally unfunny and just make the page ridiculously long. 06:19, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree. Originally the idea was to only have comments that were directly associated with the article, like the text entered in the deletion log by a Sysop or in the original edit summary. It never was intended as a place for everybody to drop their own comments afterwards. I think we should get rid of at least some comments, if not all of them. - 08:10, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree, we should delete all useless comments NOW --http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4087/tucayosz9se5.png(talk) The 'Shroom  12:48, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 * As the old version of the rules said, comments that are nothing than "WTF is DIZ", "WOW THIS SUCKS" and "YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME" should be deleted, everything else, if it's funny or informative, should stay. But I guess it's too late to voice my views. --Glowsquid 18:12, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
 * It was too full. We decided on #mwikistaff to remove them. Comments could go to the talk page if you really need them. - 18:13, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Red Links
Anyone complains if I would scout the BJAODN articles and replace all the red links with (provided there are any)? I'm bored and don't know what to do. - 18:16, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
 * There are some, I already noticed them but didn't change them. You can also watch out for spelling mistakes in the categories. - 18:18, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Amusing Mistake
Not sure if this belongs here, but I found this mistake to be amusing: Wrong Poochy image. It was corrected almost immediately, but I was wtf? for a moment. haha Redstar 20:46, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Complete entries
Um yeah, most of these are actually wayyyy too short. Would anyone mind if I deleted some of them? --Glowsquid 07:12, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Feel free to do so :) -- 11:44, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Training Machine
Why did you remove that section? I can explain about this "she" thing. You guys think it can refer to her, but according to the sentence, the feminine pronoun refers to Mario, not her. 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For something to be in BJAODN, it has to be easily understood, no need for explanations. -- 21:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? I never read that invisible part in the page.

The archive was created as a way of storing vandalism and general poor writing that users consider to be humorous.

As said earlier, everyone has different criteria for what is humorous.

??????????

22:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What goes in the BJAODN is set to admin approval. I am an admin, I say that shouldn't be there. This in order to keep the BJAODN in a healthy state and not in the craphole it was before we revamped it. -- 03:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fan-made Joke Example
Should I make another BJAODN page about how users shouldn't write about a fan-made joke? I have a full document with the code of a page like that so it would be good to use it as an example page.

Tell me in my talk.

Wait a sec
Hold on, I just looked more closely at the BJAODN page. Sorry for asking!

Hey, Guys
Duirng the moving of Piranha Plant in the Generator to Polluted Piranha Plant, I noticed this.

It's fixed now, BTW. So can we put it here?

I think I found something odd...
I was on the Shy Guy page when I found this in the Mario Golf GBC section:

A Shy Guy appeared strong(12~19mph) wind and passed away in Mario Golf for the Game Boy Color.

Is it true or is it vandalism? It looks a little odd to me. --MichiganMarioFan 22:41, 19 February 2012 (EST)

User commentary on sections
Withdrawn by proposer

Commentaries by users are now strongly discouraged due to overload. On BJAODN archives, I see some small comments below sections which actually add to the humor, and there is nothing wrong with that, is there? For example, this section's comment just made that section so much funnier. And that's the whole point of BJAODN, right? My comment got removed as per this rule, which I don't mind too much but I'm just questioning the strictness when enforcing this rule. I don't think we should just remove new comments on sight. I believe that comments should only be removed/trimmed down when they reach more than two (as any more than that, and some users may see it as a place to chat and then that would be overload). Therefore, in accordance to these ideas, I'm proposing that the guideline should be reworded to this instead;

Commentaries by users are permitted, but please restrict it to no more than two comments per section.

Proposer: Deadline: January 4, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) A less strict rule to preserve BJAODN humor.
 * 2) Per YoshiKong
 * 3) Per YoshiKong
 * 4) Per YoshiKong
 * Per YK's reasoning

Comments
Good points, but I don't think the discouragement angle should be removed altogether. A lot of the time, it seems that folks are commenting for the sake of commenting, which is what's being discouraged (in theory): genuinely witty remarks that do enhance the enjoyment of the entry should still be allowed even under the current rule ("discouraged" =/= "disallowed"). The tricky part is that what's funny for one person is lame for another, but that's gonna be an issue no matter what. I just worry that simply saying they're allowed will make people go crazy with commentary again, and lessen others' ability to remove the excess: imho, it's better to have no comments than two unnecessary ones. I'd support something more like: "Commentary is permitted, but users should show restraint in this matter. Commentary should make the entries funnier, and commenting for the sake of commenting will be removed, as will lengthy back-and-forth exchanges." - it's less restrictive, but still dissuades users from going around commenting on everything, or piling on the comments for particular entries (and does so without resorting to an arbitrary cut-off, which could always backfire and be interpreted as "everything should have 2 comments"). - 20:56, 24 December 2012 (EST)


 * I like your suggestion; I didn't think of that loophole. I want to reword it now, but the proposal is already more than three days old. Should I withdraw it, apply changes, and then re-propose? 21:07, 24 December 2012 (EST)
 * Yeah, I think that would be best. Sorry for not replying in time to avoid having to re-list it: somehow I didn't notice this TPP until today... - 21:46, 24 December 2012 (EST)

User commentary on sections (re-proposing)
Commentaries by users are now strongly discouraged due to overload. I'm proposing that this rule be reworded to the following;

Commentary is permitted, but users should show restraint in this matter. Commentary should make the entries funnier, and commenting just for the sake of commenting will be removed, as will lengthy back-and-forth exchanges.

...for the following reasons. The current rule restricts/discourages all comments below BJAODN sections. I believe that comments which actually add to the humor should be allowed, like this for example. However, we still want to discourage users from commenting just for the sake of it. It should also be highlighted that all comments should be aimed at either making that section funnier, or just giving an insight about the section. To back this up and prevent overload, we should also specifically say that we don't allow an excessive amount of comments on sections (like back-and forth exchanges between users, as the proposed states). Yes, the rule gives users a lot more freedom in commenting, but it also sets a specific standard, unlike our current rule.

Proposer: (with suggestions by ) Deadline: January 8, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) - Per YoshiKong and my comments on the earlier proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal
 * 4) Yeah, Yeah Per all.. BJAODN are just the only FUN part of the wiki, why destroy it?
 * 5) Definitely.  The comments are hilarious, and I was so disappointed when I saw that. Per all.
 * 6) BJAODN rules! Slag off Soccermoms people without a sense of humor!
 * 7) Per all. It could make the BJAODN section even more funny and enjoyable.