Wikipedia talk:BJAODN:The Next Page Title

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Discussion

I took the liberty of loosely categorizing the entries. Order of entries and/or categories is not indicative of any preference by anyone[1], so do read them all. :-) I don't expect overlap to be a problem, just put things in the most specific category (so "Son of bla" goes in the relatives section, despite being a pun on existing titles as well). JRM 14:51, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
[1] In fact, it usually indicates merely the order in which they were suggested. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for a page title

What about "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOnsense? Of course, this one's based on the Star Wars screams :) Draconiator 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No signing of suggestions, please

Page title suggestions should, IMHO, not be signed, so as to better stand or fall on their own weight. I have thus recently (as of this post) removed most of the sigs that served no purpose other then the marking of territory. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose that I started the signing was for easy access for people to see that a person doesn't create their own title and then support it all at the same time. That and I made so many of them, I don't remember which of them were the ones I created. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "Don't vote for yourself" thing is more a suggestion for a code of ethics. It was put there in the hopes of keeping down the amount of one vote wonders after somebody put in two suggestions and voted for them in the same edit. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for naming BJAODN pages

What should the rules for naming BJAODN pages be? The general consensus around here seems to be that the name must contain the phrase "bad jokes and other deleted nonsense". While it's nice to have a trademark, I don't think every page need follow this convention. We already have two pages that don't follow it (More bad jokes than you can shake a stick at and its successor). Also, every BJAODN page identifies itself as such at the top, so it isn't that important if somebody doesn't immediately realize what it is from the title. Eric119 16:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there really need to be any hard-set rules — this page is just for fun. Let's just continue to use whatever seems to be popular on ↑#The Next Page Title↑? • Benc • 19:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another sign that rule-lawyering has gone too far. Benc, you are a voice of sanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
May I point out that it wasn't my idea to have rules, that in fact I was proposing to remove an apparently existing rule? Eric119 01:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No. No, you may not. r3m0t 16:23, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm pretty sure that would be against the rules. --John Owens (talk) 01:12, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

[edit] Should we continue the "Relatives of BJAODN" series?

  • From above: Since I liked it [All Your Bad Joke And Other Deleted Nonsense Are Belong To Us], I used it for page 14. Luc "Somethingorother" French 23:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Luc, I like it too, but using it right now breaks the series-pattern we have going of "relatives of BJAODN'" Would you strongly object if I changed it to the next title in the relatives series, "Son of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense", and then we use this one after we've exhausted the relatives series? There seems to be enough support for the relatives series to continue it. Kevyn 16:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I would strongly object. This got 4 votes; Relatives only got 3. As to "series-pattern", remember, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds; and series-pattern as a justification for changing a page title probably qualifies as "foolish consistency". Luc "Somethingorother" French 19:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Luc, there is no need to resort to name-calling (The "little minds" comment). Continuing the series pays off at the end with the ad absurdium long names, a payoff which doesn't pack the same punch if we break the series now. Also, there's not a finite number of pages to title, so we would get to the later ones as soon as the series is exhausted. From a strictly vote-counting POV, there is precedent in this series for not making the top vote-getter the next title: "Father of the Bride of BJAODN" was added as the next one in the series with only 2 votes, over titles that had higher vote counts (including this one). Of course, if I withdrew my vote from this one for the time being, it would have equal votes. I'd like to ask what others think? Kevyn 03:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • I think withdrawing a vote to get a result you want is the most contemptible idea I've ever heard of. Besides, I suspect that we'd exhausted the funny in the Relatives series; "son of", "granddaughter of" and so on would have got boring very quickly, and could probably have gone on forever. Revenge and Bride have good horror connotations (Bride Of Frankenstein, for instance), and Father Of The Bride is a good reference to follow up with. There is a limit as to how far you can push a good thing, you know. Kinitawowi 08:47, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry if I seemed insulting, Kevyn; the quote about "a foolish consistency" was what your request evoked in my mind, and I wanted to point out that "series pattern" qualified as "foolish consistency", i.e., consistency at the cost of something valuable; in this case, consistency in "series-pattern" would come at the cost of consistency of precedent.Luc "Somethingorother" French 17:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ferengi Rules of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

  • While Ferengi stories were always my favourite episodes on ST:DS9, and I've been known to quote a Rule of Aquisition from time to time, and while I can appreciate the amount of time and work that went into this... but ALL 285 rules in a table that doesn't fit into the existing format of the page? That seems a little much, especially since most are not likely to ever be used or even voted upon. Please, lets not complicate things more than necessary. Choose a few individual rules that might make good titles and put them back into the main page under the appropriate Star Trek section. Kevyn 14:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Consider it as a very bad joke ;) -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Further consider that the title could be "Ferengi Rules of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" and the table as the lead section ;) -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ferengi Rules of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
Number Rule BJAODN Title
1 Once you have their money, you never give it back. Once you have their bad joke, you never give other deleted nonsense back.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
3 Never pay more for an acquisition than you have to. Never delete nonsense for a bad joke unless you have to.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
6 Never allow family to stand in the way of opportunity. Never allow family to stand in the way of a bad joke or other deleted nonsense.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
7 Keep your ears open. Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, Rule 7: Keep your ears closed
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
8 Small print leads to large risk.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
9 Opportunity plus instinct equals profit.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
10 Greed is eternal.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
13 Anything worth doing is worth doing for money.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
16 A deal is a deal... until a better one comes along. A bad joke is a bad joke... until other deleted nonsense comes along.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
17 A contract is a contract is a contract... but only between Ferengi.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
18 A Ferengi without profit is no Ferengi at all.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
19 Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
21 Never place friendship above profit.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
22 A wise man can hear profit in the wind.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
23 Nothing is more important than your health... except for your money.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
27 There is nothing more dangerous than an honest businessman.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
28 Whisper your way to success.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
31 Never make fun of a Ferengi's mother!
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
33 It never hurts to suck up to the boss.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
34 War is good for business. Bad jokes are good for business.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
35 Peace is good for business. Other deleted nonsense are good for business.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
40 She can touch your lobes, but never your latinum. She can touch your bad jokes, but never your other deleted nonsense.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
41 Profit is its own reward.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
44 Never confuse wisdom with luck.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
47 Don't trust a man wearing a better suit than your own.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
48 The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
52 Never ask when you can take.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
57 Good customers are as rare as latinum. Treasure them.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
58 There is no substitute for success.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
59 Free advice is seldom cheap.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
60 Keep your lies consistent.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
62 The riskier the road, the greater the profit.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
65 Win or lose, there's always Huyperian beetle snuff.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
74 Knowledge equals profit.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
75 Home is where the heart is, but the stars are made of latinum.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
76 Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
79 Beware of the Vulcan greed for knowledge.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
82 The flimsier the product, the higher the price.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
85 Never let the competition know what you're thinking.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
89 Ask not what your profits can do for you, but what you can do for your profits.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
94 Females and finances don't mix.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
95 Expand or die.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
97 Enough... is never enough.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
98 Every man has his price.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
99 Trust is the biggest liability of all.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
102 Nature decays, but latinum lasts forever.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
104 Faith moves mountains... of inventory.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
106 There is no honor in poverty.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
109 Dignity in an empty sack is worth the sack.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
111 Treat people in your debt like family... exploit them.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
112 Never have sex with the boss's sister.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
113 Always have sex with the boss.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
121 Everything is for sale, even friendship.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
123 Even a blind man can recognize the glow of latinum.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
125 You can't make a deal if you're dead.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
139 Wives serve, brothers inherit
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
141 Only fools pay retail.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
144 There's nothing wrong with charity... as long as it winds up in your pocket.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
162 Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
177 Know your enemies... but do business with them always.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
181 Not even dishonesty can tarnish the shine of profit.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
189 Let others keep their reputation. You keep their money.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
190 Hear all, trust nothing.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
192 Never cheat a Klingon... unless you're sure you can get away with it.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
194 It's always good to know about new customers before they walk in your door.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
202 The justification for profit is profit.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
203 New customers are like razor-toothed gree worms. They can be succulent, but sometimes they bite back.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
208 Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than the question is an answer.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
211 Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
214 Never begin a negotiation on an empty stomatch.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
217 You can't free a fish from water.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
218 Always know what you're buying.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
223 Beware the man who doesn't make time for oo-mox.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
229 Latinum lasts longer than lust.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
236 You can't buy fate.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
239 Never be afraid to mislabel a product.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
242 More is good. All is better.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
255 A wife is a luxury. A smart accountant is a necessity.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
261 A wealthy man can afford anything except a conscience.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
263 Don't let doubt interfere with your lust for latinum.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
266 When in doubt, lie.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
284 Deep down, everyone's a Ferengi. Deep down, everything is a bad joke or other deleted nonsense
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
285 No good deed ever goes unpunished.
  • Support:
  • Oppose:

[edit] Springtime for BJAODN

regarding Wikipedia:BJAODN:The_Next_Page_Title#Show_tunes_.28Broadway_musicals.2C_etc.29

AllyUnion (talk) wrote to Shane Smith talk:

Just to note, the reference is from the movie/play "The Producers" which the line goes, "Springtime for Hilter and Germany... Deutschland is happy and gay..." -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ally- Fair enough, if that's the specific line you want to refer to. My memory keeps giving me a line (maybe it's in the second verse or something) that goes, "Springtime for Hitler and Germany, Winter for Poland and France..." That's where my proposal comes from... It seems silly to post mine as a separate proposal, given that yours and mine refer to the same song. When a change to an existing proposal is, er, proposed, how do we know which version subsequent voters are supporting? Should yours be the default because you posted first? I mean, mine wasn't a misquote, just a different quote from the same song. Personally, I like mine better, which makes sense, but you like yours better, which also makes sense. Are we supposed to put this to some kind of vote? Seems a bit overdone and kind of adversarial for BJAODN... What do you think, Ally? Other frequent BJAODNers? Shane Smith 20:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Producer Lyrics for "Springtime for Hilter". I think the current format is to leave the original and suggest an alternative... or do what I do, put it as a separate title... -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the lyrics...since yours is a better representation of the original reference, I'll remove my proposed change and support yours. Shane Smith 12:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curmudgeon

omg - now, not only am I a curmudgeon, I am put in Curmudgeon solitary for all to see. That's okay. I am a curmudgeon. I can take it. I probably should have made it my user name. --Mothperson 11:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Rules'

Can we get rid of rule one... Avoid titles that do not contain the phrase "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense." I think it limits the comedy potential of title, hasn't been rigidly stuck to previously i.e More Bad Jokes than you can shake a stick at and its sequal. BJAODN pages all contain enough references to the fact that they are BJAODN to clear up any possible confusion if someone accidentaly reaches a page, and it is very unlikely anyone will ever link to a page by accident. --Neo 17:43, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • The reason "Avoid" is in #1 instead of "Don't use" is for the very reasons you cite. The consensus is that it is preferable to use BJAODN in the title, and it is encouraged, but not 100% mandatory. (Only 99.998% mandatory.) -- Kevyn (talk) 05:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for opposition

Lubaf, I object to this:

  1. Please, don't oppose a title unless you have a specific, strong objection to the title (e.g., too long, the title could be considered baiting a contributor, etc.).

What is your rationale? No one has to justify a support vote - why should they have to justify an oppose vote? What does it matter what the reasons for the opposition are? -- Kevyn (talk) 05:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh - where did this come from? I wouldn't mind explaining my oppose votes, but it would get awfully repetitious. Not to mention irritating to others. I'm already the black sheep here. So, full disclosure for the future: I don't know who has written any of the titles except mine; I am trying not to oppose anything unless it seems to be gathering momentum and I think it is not very funny especially in light of the fact that there are so many other better ones already proposed; when I have a different reason other than omg-this-is-lame, I try to state it. In some cases, if I have a specific, strong objection to something other than omgtil, I will oppose if the title has one support vote, but I won't single anything out until it's been voted for. And I do try to explain my opposition when it isn't of the omgtil nature. As for not opposing things unless etc. etc., that seems a little - overly sensitive? My motto for trying to write titles is "Dare to be stupid!" And since I do that, I will oppose my own titles if they spark the omgtil reaction. They always seem so much better when I first think of them. Speaking of which, bored now. (reference to vampWillow, in "The Wish") --Mothperson 11:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I wrote it because I was annoyed at how many oppose votes were just plain stupid. (e.g., the "Oppose because RickK supported" vote that may or may not still be in circulation at this point.) I could've phrased it a lot better, I'll admit. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 19:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What surprised me here was that virtually no one was opposing anything. I actually had the thought that there might be some rule somewhere that you were not supposed to vote against anything. So we may be coming at this from different directions. I would like to think that people's reasons are whatever they are, and shouldn't have to be explained, unless - as in the example you mentioned - they prefer to make asses of themselves, in which case I think letting them do so is perhaps the most appropriate punishment. I include myself in that. You can't really make rules about something as slippery as one's sense of humor. Well..... you can try, but I Oppose, on the previously established grounds of omgtil.
So I guess the short answer is no, I'm sorry, I can't think of a thing. --Mothperson 00:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with Mothperson on this one. Sure, there are some pretty stupid oppose votes (Like the "Oppose because RickK supported" vote), but I'm willing to let the democratic process do it's work here. People who cast a lot of stupid votes will be seen for what they are - a stupid voter - and their votes will ultimately speak for themselves. I'm not terribly worried about one or two oppose votes on a worthy title keeping it from being selected. The quality of the title suggestion will be a major deciding factor in that title rising above the stupid voter bringing it down. Now, I do admit that the recent change in the dynamics of the page with the oppose votes coming in makes it a bit more complicated, but also in some ways, more interesting. The best-loved titles are still going to be chosen. And, on principle, I don't think that a person should have to justify an oppose vote any more than they have to justify a support vote. -- Kevyn (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Sock Puppet

I can't prove it, but I suspect our newest voter, User:Dell Adams, is nothing but a Sock Puppet. I became suspicious when I saw a red-linked name (meaning no user page) I didn't recognize voting on a bunch of things on the page. I went to the user's page, and saw that this "user" has never contributed anything to Wikipedia before voting on BJAODN titles today (See: [1] ). This is not the behaviour of a new user, to create an account and then just start voting on BJAODN titles.

I have a suspicion which of our regular contributors this sock puppet really is, but I will not name names until I can prove it (and delete the offending votes).

-- Kevyn (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, obviously it isn't me. What's the point of being a sock puppet if all you're going to do is be agreeable? Off with its head. Foot. Whatever. Mothperson 11:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Uh-huh. -- Kevyn (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
A check of my IP address will presumably show that I really have never posted before under any name. A check of my contributions will (now) show that I've started chipping in on the Spanish Translation of the Week. I can't blame Kevyn for his suspicions, and I regret not putting anything on my User page first thing. But let it be known that I am an authentically clueless newbie with a genuine fascination with the BJAODN and what to call the next page. --Dell Adams 08:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
So....uh, Dell......... welcome to Wikipedia BJAODN!!! That Kevyn. Still doesn't believe anyone really landed on the moon, you know. Now, tell me, how do you feel about the Bobbsey Twins? --Mothperson 00:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

What the heck. I am definitely NOT a sock puppet. I am a new (defined as about a month) user. Drahcir(Richard)

[edit] The Optional Voting Rule

Since I am one of the very few ever opposing anything, it will come as no surprise that I oppose Lubaf's:

"Optional: If Opposing, please provide a specific objection to the title in question. Providing specific objections will inform future voters, and a good, reasoned objection can sometimes stop any further supporting votes, so giving good reasoning when opposing aids your cause."

Pretending I took this personally (I don't), my reaction would be "Aids my cause??? Huh?" Actually, that is my reaction.

What the heck.Drahcir

Perhaps I am overreacting here, have just encountered the Wikipedia Candy bars police, but are we not taking this thing a mite too seriously? I have seen (and opposed) only two suggestions I thought were in questionable taste. Let's look at a more typical example. That darn Proto, who is trying to usurp my position as leader of the Opposition, has voted against my beloved "BJAODN on Blueberry Island". From this, I assume that either he/she is from Outer Pottsylvania and therefore, culturally-speaking, cannot understand all the intricate nuances of my side-splitting reference, or, he/she has the sense of humor of a newel post.

Were opposition to "BJAODN on Blueberry Island" to be considered a cause to be defended and aided, I would have serious doubts about the sanity of the voter/s.

I recently, accidentally, found out some people view my "Oppose" votes as a tactic, to throw support to other titles I like better. At first, I was rather taken aback. Then, duh, well, yeah? Of course it's a tactic. Just like voting "Support" is a tactic. Or, neither of them is a tactic. It's just voting. It's a poll.

In my opinion, Lubaf's optional rule is unnecessary, and only augments the pre-existing bandwagon atmosphere. If some of us want to get off and walk, we shouldn't have to explain why, unless we want to. Anyway, I've already explained my oppose votes above, in the other discussion.

Unless a similar optional rule is added for "Support" votes, I request that (having recently read a rather interesting edit war I would love to add here - "Nay - I DEMAND that," but that would be silly, so I won't (except in my head!)) this optional rule be deleted.

cantankerously yours, Mothperson 13:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I put the rule in question there because I believe that Opposing a title usually requires a specific objection (and yes, "It isn't funny" is good enough as an objection). You don't have to list the objection, but the rule is intended to clarify some important points: That a well described objection can help prevent Support votes for objectionable titles, and that while all Support votes tend to be about one thing (i.e. "I like this"), objections can be all over the map (e.g. "not funny enough", "way too long", and "Anne Frank jokes are in really bad taste"). Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On my talk page, Moth person wrote: "I cannot understand why a "Support" vote automatically means "It's funny" but an "Oppose" vote doesn't automatically mean "It's not funny." --Mothperson 15:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)" My response is: Because objections, as stated above, can be about more then "this isn't funny": "This is in bad taste", "This qualifies as a personal attack" (see "Ashley Simpson and other BJAODN", which qualifies as baiting User:Everyking), "This is too long", "This doesn't show up right on my computer" (for the Unicode example), and there are plenty of other reasons why an "Oppose" vote might be about something besides "this isn't funny". Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 16:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When objectionable titles come up, and that seems to be rare, someone will always point out bad taste, or whatever, on his or her own, without needing instructions. And if it's optional, why is it under "rules", and why are you so obsessed with something that virtually never happens? I still think this fosters that bandwagon attitude, is completely unnecessary, and is sort of patronizing to boot, to which I, as always, Object. --Mothperson 16:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First, let me assume you, Lubaf-of-the-many-names, don't have this page on your watch list. Otherwise I might take offense that you ignored my comments for 4 days plus, until I finally did something that you felt you had to revert, without discussion. Therefore, if you don't respond within 24 hours, I will leave a note on your talk page that this is something you might ought to read. Where I come from, that last is perfectly correct grammatically. Of course, where I come from, opposition, while not exactly viewed as a virtue, is considered perfectly correct. So we may both be hearing some cultural static. And I'm not talking nationality or politics here.
You opine that "Support" votes are simply "I like this" while "Oppose" votes are all over the map. I think that's nonsense, and should be deleted. Prove to me that everyone supporting a title likes it for the same reason. You can't. Some people think anything to do with Star Trek is hilarious. Others (moi) feel the same way about the Bobbsey Twins. Some people think bathroom humor is funny. I'd love to know the reason why, but I really don't need to. That's their business. Some people like really obscure references because they're so obscure, and some people like things to be really really banana-peel obvious. The reasons for thinking something is funny are also "all over the map" but you are implying it's perfectly okay not to explain that, because everybody apparently is supposed to understand Support means" I like that," for whatever inane reasons, while Oppose requires the voter prove why he/she doesnt' like "that." I know you're saying it's optional, but if it's optional WHY EVEN MENTION IT? People will do it anyway if they think it's called for. Or they'll do it anyway to be obnoxious.
What are you gaining here? Yes, I admit, for several weeks I believed you were not supposed to oppose anything. But if I figured it out (with a little help, I must admit), anyone can. So please reconsider what you're trying to achieve here. And what you could get as a result. Personally, the final outcome won't affect me. I've spent the last three years learning "nothing is personal," and comments on my crappy titles cannot offend me. But does everyone want to be told their stuff isn't funny, sometimes in excruciating detail? Again, what are you gaining here? This seems nutty to me but actually pretty funny because...eh, I'll spare you my explication. -- Mothperson 21:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody besides Mothperson have any objections to the rule as writen? Because I'm quite willing to comprimise on the wording if anybody else has any objections. (I'm less then happy with the phrase "aids your cause", I freely admit, but can't come up with anything better.) Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 19:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where?

Where do you place your suggestions?

At the end of whereever it looks like they belong. If it's in the wrong place, somebody'll probably move it to the right one. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Par-tay!

Yes, the curmudgeon is leaving BJAODN, having decided it is not worth having to work under the dark cloud of Monsieur L's obsessions with his rules. It is not fun to explain why I oppose everytime I do – I've tried it.

I was going to change the optional rule (isn't that an oxymoron?) today to Optional: if your Oppose vote has any significance other than you don't think the title is funny, please explain why, so that others may understand and, perhaps, benefit. But Lubaf, who apparently has voted himself president-for-life re: How to participate, would simply remove it, rejoicing, no doubt, that today at least, he won't have to wriggle around the three-reverts rule by calling me a double-post, and then a vandal.

And spare me, Lubaf. I get it. Anything you don't agree with is a "rant." Sure, fine, whatever. What I find fascinating is how little else you do around here besides writing rules and categorizing. By the history, it's Kevyn and AllyUnion and others who actually take care of the page, add substantial content, and do the real work.

Quotes from further up this page

...I don't think there really need to be any hard-set rules — this page is just for fun...[[User:Benc|• Benc]

Another sign that rule-lawyering has gone too far. Benc, you are a voice of sanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
May I point out that it wasn't my idea to have rules, that in fact I was proposing to remove an apparently existing rule? Eric119 01:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No. No, you may not. r3m0t 16:23, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm pretty sure that would be against the rules. --John Owens (talk) 01:12, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

The lack of exchanges like this, as opposed to the increasingly tedious butting of heads by Lubaf and me; the fact that the rest of y'all seem disinclined to state an opinion; the suspicion that I was right early-on – you really aren't supposed to oppose anything here – and therefore, my presence just irritates people; all lead me to the conclusion there's no point being here if it isn't fun.

And I'm leaving not a moment too soon, as there's not a thing in this post remotely humorous except those quotes. Going into quarantine, now. I think I've caught something from somebody. --Mothperson 17:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Suggestion: T. S. Eliot

His "Wasteland" and "Love Song of Alfred Prufrock" have quite a few well-known lines. I'm not up to doing them, but I'm thinking along the lines of "I will show you Deleted Nonsense in a handful of Bad Jokes" (taken from "I will show you fear in a handful of dust"). --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Suggestion: 'I Love The Smell Of Bad Jokes In The Morning' Derived from Apocolypse Now

Suggestion: 'Of All The Bad Jokes In All The World, You Had To Walk Into Ours'

You should probably move the Apocalypse Now one into the main Apocalypse Now section on the article page. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aren't oppose votes counted?

Mark J recently placed the top ten vote getters at the top of the page in order of support votes. This is necessary maintenance, to be sure, but shouldn't the oppose votes be taken into consideration? The title "You are in a maze of twisty little Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, all alike" is in second place with 17 support votes at the moment. But subtract all its oppose votes, and it drops to fourth. Likewise, "One Bad Joke to rule them all, one Votes for Deletion to find them, one Deleted Nonsense to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" has an equal number of supports and oppositions, and probably shouldn't be on the top ten at all. Am I wrong to count oppose votes equally to support votes? --BrianSmithson 14:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, as long as you sort it out. --Jamdav86 18:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I just made another page (that's only 9 days between pages, craziness) and I kept that suggestion in mind - the title I used had 16 "support" votes and 2 "oppose", where the title sitting at first had 17 "support" but 7 "oppose". - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 23:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New page

Someone PLEASE make a new page on BJAODN! SYSS Mouse 18:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:It's Bad! It's a Joke! It's Other Deleted Nonsense! - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 00:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing the Page

I am currently working on reorganizing this page to make it easier for people to find and vote on the titles they like. As it is, the sections are so long that by the time I scroll up to the nearest "edit" link, I have forgotten what I was going to say, and the votes are drowning in a sea of asterisks. Any suggestions would be welcome. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 00:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is the sheer volume of suggestions. Should we break the page up into subpages? Remove suggestions under certain circumstances? Morgan Wick 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Suggestion

How about AAAAAACK! Not Another Page of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense!

[edit] Suggestion

What about:

"SEX...Now that I've got your attention, here's yet another page of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" --Riche 11:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:You've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel like Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense?" Well, do ya, punk?

This page appears to have been created without regard to the Next Page Title page by User:Nrcprm2026. Though he originally created it under another title and moved it citing this page, a quick look at the version of this page extant at the time suggests that the page he moved it to was not actually proposed on the page. Propose a move to Wikipedia:These Bad Jokes need to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of Deleted Nonsense quality, unless anyone has any objections (I could have sworn I had seen it on some earlier version of the page... but I'm pretty sure it didn't make it to the coveted Likely Candidates section). Morgan Wick 06:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that it was on Specific Page Number Suggestions, but with a paltry two Support votes, compared to 17 net votes (at the time) for the recommended move. If we got our ideas from Specific Page Number Suggestions with every single number with a suggestion, we'd never get to any suggestions on the main page. Morgan Wick 06:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I left a note on his talk page. He responded on mine, which you will want to see. He also made several changes to the layout of the page, which I think were probably beneficial, but warrant further review, since I made my own changes to them. The question of whether or not to move the page is still outstanding. Morgan Wick 07:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Move done; thanks to Morgan for the good advice. I'm not a BJAODN expert, or at least I wasn't. --James S. 10:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reformatting

I noticed the ===X net votes=== subheadings frequently were inaccurate, so I reformatted the "Likely candidates section". It should make it easier to update the current net votes for each candidate. Also, it will be easier to support or oppose a specific candidate, simply by [edit]ing the appropriate subheading. — MSchmahl… 15:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On choosing the name

Hey, if a name for the next BJAODN page is chosen & that page subsequently created, how will we know? More to the point, when is the title for the next page expected to be chosen? Sgt. Bond 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

1st question: The discussion on that title will be archived. 2nd question: The next will be chosen when the current one is full. --AAA! (talk • contribs) 10:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Question

Can one person have multiple suggestions at a time? Sgt. Bond 17:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --AAA! (talk • contribs) 10:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ummm.... isn't it about time to pick the next page title?

Seeing as #53 Hello. My name is Bad Jokes. You Deleted my Other Nonsense. Prepare to die. has 144 sections and is 193 kilobytes long. It seems to me that the time to pick a new page title has come and gone and come again already. Is no one paying attention? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

This article is freakishly huge. I can't even find my own suggestions. So I suggest the following:

  • Make this current page a disambiguation page
  • Each section should become a subpage
  • New suggestions will go under the category the sections. Or individual ones will go under "Other".
  • The archive page will be linked on the disambiguation page. --AAA! (talk • contribs) 01:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. We need to change BJAODN Next Page Title into a disambugation page, with sections leading to other sections. I'll work on that... Dark Ermac 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Done! --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 04:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what

Hi. I found that some of the content is not deleted, especially if it's on a talk page. Also, it better not contain any disturbing images or external links. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/j/a/Wikipedia_talk%7EBJAODN%7EThe_Next_Page_Title_deff.html"