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.
 
I was looking through some random articles, then I found the Jungle Japes article. Then I wondered, why are these sections not labelled with {{conjecturaltext|[section name]}}? We do it for the Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 galaxies planets, those aren't official; why should the Donkey Kong 64 level articles deserve different treatment?
 
I guess there's more concern that people will think the planets' names are really whatever we're calling them, whereas these DK areas are pretty obviously not official names. I.e. the text itself never says "the Central Area", whereas the Galaxy pages DO call the planets by their (capitalized) "names" in both the sections listing the planets themselves, and in the mission sections (which even include bulleted lists of planets). Rather than slapping {{conjecturaltext}} all over the place, what we SHOULD do with the DK pages is make the "Areas" in the headers lowercase, to be sure no one thinks they're proper nouns.
 
Here's a question: does MarioWiki have any sort of standard when it comes to gameplay sections? I myself don't recall. If it is, it's not in the Manual of Style nor does it have its own page (like Reception and sales). I came to this realization by looking at the differences in the gameplay sections between Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, New Super Mario Bros., Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS, Donkey Kong (Game Boy), and Mario Party 9, even between featured articles. I recall there was a call for a standard for pre-release and unused content pages, should there be something similar for our gameplay sections?
 
I think the biggest problem with having a standard for gameplay is that gameplay wildly varies between games, so they need to be covered in varying ways as well. I think a couple of sections, like basic controls (Mario Party/WarioWare's minigames are the biggest variances, but a general "the controller is used in many different ways" suffices for me), are requirements for all of them, but beyond that, I think it'd be better to play it by ear.
 
Time Turner said:
I think the biggest problem with having a standard for gameplay is that gameplay wildly varies between games, so they need to be covered in varying ways as well. I think a couple of sections, like basic controls (Mario Party/WarioWare's minigames are the biggest variances, but a general "the controller is used in many different ways" suffices for me), are requirements for all of them, but beyond that, I think it'd be better to play it by ear.
Click to expand...
You can still group sections by taking advantage of common traits the games have. For instance, you have "objective", "controls", and "level progression", which is a trait in many games. I'm not saying we should use rigid standards, but we should use an organizational standard that has flexibility. I think it's some progress compared to the all-over-the-place organization in those articles. As RandomYoshi has pointed out, my ideas are not very mature and can use some development, but that's where you guys come in. :)
 
(post conflict; no time to tweak accordingly, but it still works for the most part)

Yeah, there's too much variety between games to really be able to make a succinct "how to" section that's not just "write as much as you need so that someone can read it and understand how to navigate the game and beat the levels", which is sorta how I think of them in my head. List of button functions make sense (Minigame infoboxes have 'em, the overall games might as well too); talking about Red Coins and whatnot is okay, talking about different modes is good. And in general, subheaders are great imo: better putting them under Gameplay than as a billion Lv. 2 headers cluttering up the place, and better to divide up sections rather than just having a wall of text covering everything at once.

In general, as long as it's not a strategy session, which runs into the same Do-Not-Want-ness as walkthrough-style writing, or like endless paragraphs of nitty-gritty details, or the other extreme of like, "press start to play; scroll right until you reach the end; beat all the levels to win; the end", it's probably decent (not counting general bad writing problems that affect all sections, anyway).
 
I'm not sure if I'm getting my suggestion across clearly: should we divide the Gameplay section into standard level 3 headers (of course, when appropriate)? That's what I'm asking, since there are some games that do this, some games that don't. I feel both the aesthetics and readability can be improved rather than putting all into one level 2 header. Button functions, red coins, major gameplay elements, those are all fine, but I don't know if it's a good idea to stuff them all into one header under "Gameplay".
 
This might be a dumb question, but what's the difference between a Clam and a Clampy? They're both clams with eyes that hold items, and the Clam's appearance in SMG2 especially matches the Clampies'.
 
It seems like Clams just hold stuff while Clampy's also grab players in the NSMB games, but they can probably be merged based on their near-identical looks, with the justification that enemy behaviours can change over time - plus apparently Clampies are also known as Clams in at last one Prima guide, further blurring the line between them.

Mario Party Δ said:
I'm not sure if I'm getting my suggestion across clearly: should we divide the Gameplay section into standard level 3 headers (of course, when appropriate)? That's what I'm asking, since there are some games that do this, some games that don't. I feel both the aesthetics and readability can be improved rather than putting all into one level 2 header. Button functions, red coins, major gameplay elements, those are all fine, but I don't know if it's a good idea to stuff them all into one header under "Gameplay".
Click to expand...
Like I said...

Walkazo said:
in general, subheaders are great imo:[...] better to divide up [Gameplay] sections rather than just having a wall of text covering everything at once.
Click to expand...

So yeah, if there's lots of info, make Lv 3 headers as needed - i.e. based on the info that's available and the subject matter that's applicable to that particular game. If there's just one line about red coins, don't bother making a subsection; if there's a whole in-depth explanation about them and other such collectibles, make a "Collectibles" (or whatever) subheader; if there's known button controls available, make a "Controls" subheader, if it's data-deficient, wait for the info to be found and added; if a game has Minigames, make a subsection; if it doesn't, don't, etc. etc. etc.

No so much "standard" as common sense, and since many games are similar, the same headers should pop up naturally a lot of the time, hopefully with the same names.
 
Thanks, 'kazo. I suppose I'll just edit those sections when needed. :)

Somebody has information on Clawdia Koopa, although I'd like to include it in the main article, I'm not extremely well-versed in the Clawdia thing, so can someone with more knowledge or experience with these things help with this information?
 
well before rewriting anything, it'd be good to have the megazine issue and direct quotation rather than "i remember that"
 
That was I was trying to ask him, although Cheat-master30 doesn't seem to understand that he needs much more compelling evidence, especially considering how humans tend to suck at recalling details (why witnesses aren't valid evidence).
 
Here is another example where the information is unclear simply because of jargon confusing to a layperson.

Daisy article said:
A unique trait she retains is using various American English accents and slang. She has repeatedly used one-liners said in a Dixie accent, Valleyspeak, and even Ebonics.
Click to expand...

I myself think it's overanalyzing, but I'm always open to be corrected.
 
Examples of each would be an improvement. Assuming she does use all those sorta of turns-of-phrase, and it's not just someone bullshitting.

Jargon is okay when it's explained or understandable from the context, and when using it makes things clearer (like the "cis-female" stuff on the Vivian page: yeah, it's a bit jargony, but it's what she is in some versions, as opposed to trans-female, and specifying what she is, given how she's a female either way, makes sense). However, going out of the way to use frivolous jargon is bad, and using it incorrectly, speculatively or as part of reading too much into something, are worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back