General Discussion

tbh, if there was gonna be a comment, I'd rather it be an informative note that as of the 2015 rediscovery, that article is perfectly intact from when it was written in 2009, rather than tacking on a "witty" comment to someone else's find.

It's like, if you have something genuinely FUNNY to say when you add something, then sure, that's your right, but it's irritating when people go around commenting on stuff just because they can (especially if someone else already said something about it). 9 times out of 10, you are not actually half as funny as you think you are, and it would be so much better to just let the material speak for itself rather than cluttering it with pointless commentary.

(I'm speaking in the general you, fyi, because all the inane chatter on BJAODN bug me off every time I read the archive, but yeah, that comment's an example of something that's not archive-worthy, no offence.)
 
Yeah, I suppose background would actually help. In something like "Happiness", it would be better to explain why it's there.
 
I'm personally not bugged by pointless commentary. Most of the time I enjoy it and I think it's more amusing than letting the article speak for itself. And honestly I don't mind if someone inserts a "witty" comment at my personal entries.
 
Yeah, I also think they're great especially when they're pointing out what's wrong while mocking it. I think it's harder than you think sometimes for people to "get" the joke, so pointers are recommended when it's not self-explanatory ("Happiness" isn't immediately WTF to a reader, IMO). One thing that qualifies speaking for itself is the Marth sodoka thing, though.
 
Yeah, if an explanation's necessary to point something out or if a comment genuinely makes the thing funnier, then sure, but a lot of the time, they really don't, and a big crufty mess like "Happiness" stands for itself - save for the tidbit that it somehow managed to survive 6 years (which makes it so much more cringeworthy) and is an example of the sorta shit writing that's made the wiki the laughing stock of all sorts of communities across the Internet (which is informative History).
 
Whatever. I'm not going to support a mass removal of them because some don't think it's amusing whereas I personally think most comments are. We're already restricted enough on commentary as it is and how BJAODN runs currently as is, in my opinion, perfectly fine.
 
Walkazo's right. If you've got a really good joke, sure but comments like the one proposed are Not Funny, and the amusement gained from the original entry is negatively impacted by the oh-so-witty comment after it and leaves the reader with the dinsct impression whoever added the comment patted themselves on the back after leaving a ~sick burn~ on some kiddie's poorly written mariowiki entry


90% of the Witty Comments (including those I left, to be fair) on BJAODN are the written equivalent of this.
 
And I don't see it that way. I disagree.
 
Honestly, a lot of the comments on BJAODN just leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's like if someone tells you a funny joke, but then spends an hour explaining the punchline even though you've already laughed. It just sucks out any amount of fun you had. I think making attempts to remove comments is unnecessary, except maybe with the more egregious examples, but we should be more strict about future comments.
 
Future comments will be based on current comments: if we want the archives to suck less, yeah, some cleaning is in order. Otherwise users will see archives filled with petty sarcasm and inane prattle and think "hey, I can do this too". We've asked people to use restraint already: doesn't work. Setting an example, or at least resetting things a bit, might stand a better chance at making things better. Plus, brevity is the soul of wit, less is more, etc. etc.

Worked example: MarioWiki:BJAODN/Items

==Blue Shell==
"I used the Blue Shell in first place. I got bombed. It was awesome."
- sure
==Buzzy beetle shell==
"Who exactly wears these mysterious shells?"
- unnecessary, unfunny sarcasm
==Capsule==
"The first thing I thought when I read this was something innuendo >_<"
- it actually makes some sense to point out that stuff of all sizes can fit in the capsule: remove the whole entry
==Carnival Card==
"This is pretty bad writing, no offense. I can hardly understand what this paragraph is talking about and the pronouns are all over the place. Also, there seems to be a lack of verb agreement here..."
- yeah, it's bad writing, but no need to break it down, and I kinda feel like writing that's just shitty in general isn't actually that funny or worth archiving in the first place...
""The editor just enjoys changing words. Oh, they is missing."
- don't even understand the grammar in the back half of this one...
==Cheese==
"Cheese isn't a household object, it's food."
- sure
"Yeah, you don't put cheese in, say, a china cabinet."
- too arbitrary to be funny
==Chaos Emerald==
"Mistake at the end is simply GOLD."
- not bad, but it took me three readings to realize it was a pun, so not great either
==List of power-ups==
"Breaking News - A new hero in the world: Maria"
- not funny; also makes me think of our old troll friend, but that's probably just me
==King Boo's Crown==
"Wow! And I always thought Toad wore King Boo's crown!"
- nasty sarcasm is unnecessary
==Mistake==
"This link brings you to the Sammer Guy of the same name."
- not really sure what's going on with the entry so more explanation (like, what the link SHOULD go to) would be better than just stating what it foes, which you can tell for yourself by hovering over the link
==Category:Mushrooms==
"Birdo is a mushroom?"
- the ONLY comment here that made me laugh
==Peach (item)==
"An apple a day keeps the doctor away, a Red Yoshi was alleged to say, thus originating the term."
- too tangential and long to be funny
==Power Star==
"(Where in Super Mario 64, Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Mario Galaxy 2 do these collectibles grant Mario "great strength, power, energy, and speed"?)"
- it does need an explanation, but it should be shorter
==Princess Peach's voice==
"(I always thought Princess Peach's voice is the sound that is produced when Mario speaks out loud!"
- again, mean-spirited sarcasm is unnecessary
==Red Coin==
"So pretty... he got the "only difference" part so... WRONG...."
- um, what? more confusing than funny
"Blue coins are blue, right?"
- this is a better way to lampshade stating the obvious situations: be cheeky, not vindictive
==Wario's Poop==
"(The articles was then later recreated with the following content):"
- explanation, okay
"I wonder how well a pile of crap can drive."
- fine
"Well, I wouldn't give him the cup, if he wins"
- fine, whether it's just "ew, not going near poo" or a more audacious reference to 2 Girls 1 Cup
Click to expand...

Some will probably say I'm too picky, but w/e, better to be left with fewer entries that most people find funny than with many entries that some people find funny but others find stupid or off-putting.