Talk:Relics of Fail

From CWCki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A Taxonomy of Fail

While I'm flattered that people have caught onto my taxonomy of referring to Chris's personal items as relics of fail with the suffix "Of Fail" (in the spirit of the Spear of Destiny), there's some confusion about what constitutes a relic. I'd like to chime in based on what I understand from the Catholic opinion of Christian relics.

Things that Chris have touched are relics (the medallion, his gitar, etc.) These are personal items that have significance to Chris and in some cases, even factor into the comics. Analogous real world relics would be the Spear of Destiny, the Shroud of Turin, the Holy Grail, etc. These are items that are significant to the lore of Jesus of Nazareth in a similar fashion to Chris's relics factor into the lore of Chris. Any sort of part of Chris's body that can be collected, like hair or toenails, would be considered a relic in the same way that Muslims revere locks of hair or footprints of the Prophet Muhammad so when we get more stuff about the locks of hair Chris sent to his TRUE and LOYAL Mexican fan, we can document more on that (in fact, we actually do have that! I need to find the pics though. I should be getting my locks of hair soon).

So, what's not a relic? A stare is not a relic - you cannot obtain a stare. As long as Chris is alive, a finger is not a relic. While limbs of saints are considered holy relics (from what I understand, in Medieval times they had problems of pilgrims ripping off fingers and toes of saints), as long as Chris is alive you cannot obtain his oversized finger (unless you somehow convince Chris to chop off his finger, which he might seriously consider if china is involved).

I'm iffy about the oversized straw being a relic, as it's more of a graphic exaggeration that trolls find amusing than an actual, single straw that Chris uses to drink (though there's been some postulation lately that due to Chris's comments about how he slobbers, he might have a special straw he uses which explains the huge ass straw in the comic). While The Wall of Originals and Megan Shrine are mega important to Chris, they're not quite a single relic but more of a place or collection of relics, so I've considered them as Shrines.

tl;dr - if you can obtain it and it's of some significance to Chris, it's probably a relic. If not, then it's not a relic. --Champthom 18:19, 7 April 2009 (CEST)

  • I'm going to try to re-organize the relics into three categories: "major", "minor", and (I suppose I'll bring back) "lesser". Right now, there seem (to me) to be too many "major" relics, some of which are much more important than others. The less important "major" relics should be demoted to "minor" relics, and a few relics that are currently "minor" should in turn be demoted to "lesser". I don't foresee many complaints with the shuffle that I've got in mind, but I'm posting this here ahead of my actual page edit later today as a heads-up. Llort 13:45, 1 October 2009 (CEST)

Guideline for Relic classification

Let's take a religious approach to the current situation. Let's say that Chris is the "Messiah-of-Fail" and his comic is his gospel. If he's set to becoming a full-flegged religion (please refrain from barfing) after his death, how his relics would be rated? Here's my idea:

Do I have something here? Any comments? Griffintown 21:04, 15 November 2009 (CET)

  • But wouldn't that system make those stupid wing hair clips a major relic, since they've been both in real life and a plot point in the comic? Not that it's not complete and utter failure to act like he did about things meant for a (rather young) girl, but they were a minor thing which hardly qualify to be listed as major. --LizardPie 00:47, 16 November 2009 (CET)
  • Good point. But the major point of the original taxonomy was that we were getting things like "The Oversized Finger of Fail", "The Creepy Stare of Fail", and things that aren't really relics. It's like saying that the look on the face of Jesus is a relic which isn't the same thing as the Holy Grail or the Shroud of Turin.
The point is, whatever the outcome of this discussion is, we need to agree that a relic is a physical object that a troll could in theory obtain and destroy. I think when I started the current classification, it was more or less based on the sentimental value that it would be to Chris. Chris would freak out if someone destroyed his high school ring. His Wii Remote, probably not. CWCki serves to not only to document Chris but also to aid trolls who wish to troll him and I think if people want to take the Blanca route of taking something precious to Chris and destroy it, we might as well give people an idea of what would make Chris crash into slumber. --Champthom 00:58, 16 November 2009 (CET)
As a base, I have to agree that the term "Relic" must describe a physical object. If not, every single thing Chris made and/or do can fit as a relic. Maybe adding the "Will cause emotional stress if lost/destroyed (Read: Target)" is enough. I am not inclined to create a fourth super-relic class, it would make the page looks silly. My goal here, and I hope it is shared, is to create a simple relic classification system where the simple beginner can use. Three or four questions should suffice to dictate where the object belongs. In example: Do the object appear in the comic? Do the object got a name? Do the object got a sentimental value for Chris? Do Chris use the object to exalt his "Virtues"? On the same idea, I have a hard time understanding why the PSEye is a major relic. Chris dint name it, dint decorated it and doesn't even care about it. Why it's a major relic? it makes no sense! Griffintown 08:22, 16 November 2009 (CET)
  • I agree with you there about a simple system that a newfag can use, as that's something we need to definitely aim for. As for the PSeye, probably because it's his means of communication to us, the Internet public, not to mention that it's cured his autism as he's practiced making eye contact with it and he magically overcame his autism (see the PSEye article on that. If it's not there, then we should mention it). --Champthom 08:26, 16 November 2009 (CET)
  • I'm pretty sure those boobs are rubber, not plush. A friend used to work in an adult bookstore/porno theater and they had these rubber boobs you could fuck in the same section of the counter they kept the male sex toys, which looked to be of poor quality. There were some rubber boobs with built-in vaginas and anuses on one side for extra terror, and some of these were supposed to be molds of some porn star's boobs. The idea is to hold onto the boobs while you fuck the area between them, or whatever orifices they've built in. It's a weird and creepy sex toy and it would be just like Chris to own it. --Anaconda 11:42, 16 November 2009 (CET)
  • Looked at the Spencer's page. Never mind, I agree. --Anaconda 10:24, 22 November 2009 (CET)

Gun article needed

--Sonijew 12:16, 16 November 2009 (CET)

Holy Grails (more like HOLY FAILS)

If people think it's out of line, I'll remove it, but I'm adding a section of fabled documents and relics of Chris that trolls should try to procure and that are of value to trolls. --Champthom 09:49, 22 November 2009 (CET)

  • Also, can someone find Chris mentioning the autism papers? I've sworn he mentioned them in a Liquid video." --Champthom 09:57, 22 November 2009 (CET)
  • It's in one of the to-be-released Kacey chats. Chris says his sleeping dad has the key to the locked filing cabinet that would have to be sorted through for hours and on top of that his scanner's broken. Very mysterious. Chris might have demanded that Liquid show his autism papers, as proof of his identity. --Anaconda 10:43, 22 November 2009 (CET)

Legendary Relics of Fail

I suggest a new category: Legendary Relics of Fail. It's for those relics we have never actually seen, but they have been mentioned, etc., in the comics, and are implied to be real (at least, when the comic in question was made). This category could include: Oversized Drinking Straw of Fail, Anime Wings, DS of Fail (featured in Sonichu 1 Sub-Episode 2), etc. How about it?

Also, somecummpentydifferent. Should we probably: a) add the Guideline for Relic Classification in the article (as it's useful info), b) delete the "Artwork of Fail" section, as it's been established that a Relic of Fail should be a physical object? GokuGetEm 11:14, 23 November 2009 (CET)

Proposed Addendum for Naming Relics

You know, I just thought of something that may be of use when decided to name articles - I think the suffix "of Fail" should be limited to something Chris has forged from his own hands. For instance, the Medallion of Fail is Fail because Chris made it himself. His PSEye would not because, while it captures his fail, is not necessarily fail because it's just a regular PSEye.

Thoughts? --Champthom 12:09, 26 November 2009 (CET)

  • By the way, this isn't about classifying them. Something like the Megatron pistol can be a Relic of Fail but we wouldn't need to say it's the "Megatron pistol of Fail" for instance. --Champthom 12:12, 26 November 2009 (CET)
  • I suggest the classification as a whole should be not about naming or quotes or smth, it should be about the role the relic plays in Chris's mythos. Yes, it means some relics can be upgraded/douwngraded over time. As for the "of Fail" suffix, it may be just used when it's needed to denote that this relic can't possibly be win, despite its original statue. E.g., "Megatron pistol" is enough fail (for a 27-year-old to use), so it doesn't need a suffix "of Fail". Medallions in general may be win or fail, so we need to add that this here Medallion is "of Fail". Just my two cents :) --GokuGetEm 13:55, 26 November 2009 (CET)

Fusion

Almost every single relic of fail article is a stub, and there's no real way to add content to those pages. I suggest that we merge all of these stubs with this article to remove some unavoidable stubs. Some of the longer articles can stay where they are, but I think it's better to have one long page over 10+ stubs. This would also help with categorisation (maybe) because the system we have seems pretty normative to me, and that pisses me off for some reason. Thelieisacake 11:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Parappa Beanie of Fail?

I'm going to suggest adding that Parappa beanie that Chris is so fond of, since he's worn it a couple of times. I'd also like to note that it actually appeared in the comic, where it granted Sonichu the paper-thin aspect present in the games. Woohah Master 22:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this, except I don't think he's worn it nearly enough to call it a Relic. --MEANWHILE 23:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems to qualify enough under the requirements of the Taxonomy of Fail. It seems to hold value to Chris, because he caps-locked HIS when describing the hat, meaning Chris may consider it to be more than meets the eye. Also, the Pokewalkers got an article, and they're even more minor than the hat, imo Woohah Master 03:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think they're too minor to have pages (granted, I feel the same way about his Pokewalkers, and of course they already have pages), but even if we do go ahead with one, keep in mind that some member are proposing a project to rename the relics of fail so as to give them better suffixes than "of fail". Thus, I feel that it would be best to see what decision is made on that issue before a page is made. --ThatMan 05:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the "of Fail" suffix?

You know, I've been thinking, a while ago I remember someone complaining somewhere that the "of Fail" is kinda juvenile and that we really shouldn't be referring to this stuff as the "[x] of Fail." After some thought, I think they might be right, but I'd like some discussion before I do anything hasty.

I would argue that the "of Fail" has entered the troll lexicon but if you think about it, it really hasn't. I mean, if someone mentions the medallions, they're just "the medallions" not "the medallions of fail." By that virtue, can't we imply that because they are Chris related they are fail in themselves? I'm starting to suspect that "of Fail" may be redundant.

However, like I said, I'd like some second opinions on this. If you people agree though, pretty much the "of Fail" would be removed from appropriate articles. Thoughts?--Champthom 09:08, 6 August 2011 (PDT)

Retrieved from "http://sonichu.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relics_of_Fail&oldid=142978"