Talk:Chris and his ego/Archive 2

From CWCki
< Talk:Chris and his ego
Revision as of 18:10, 23 January 2010 by Dude (talk | contribs) (archived)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merged Christian Love Day

Any comments on this? Griffintown 05:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Good move. He seems to think he deserves an IRL holiday for what is equivalent to a mini-Holocaust, on the same day the Nazi Party was founded, and which happened only in his imagination. If that isn't massive egotism... --SnorlaXBOX 05:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • A "Fun" part to add when we will get his "insight" on this; The Nazi Death-Camps also "Processed" Homosexuals. The parallels are quite enlightening. Griffintown 05:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, I feel a fanart coming on for that... AusCWCtz, anyone? --SnorlaXBOX 06:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Imagine the look on his face when/if someone tells him his birthday and Christian Love Day are the same day as the Nazi Party's founding! --CWCAttack 05:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Damn, where's Clyde and Jack when you need them... ;) Griffintown 05:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Finally, someone else who understands my pain! Cash appears to be too busy making video remixes while Jack...at least he kind of did something useful shortly after CWCipedia reopened. Needs more emails supporting Asperchu before he'll be able to tard rage about it in his latest video. Then I can call Jack's latest move to advertise Asperchu yet another awesome blow. --CWCAttack 06:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Merged Chris and Fame

Parts of the entry of Chris and Fame was added as an opening for the text. Any comments? Griffintown 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Awesome job cleaning up and merging. I'm glad to see something's being done to relieve the bloat of "Chris and" pages. --SnorlaXBOX 06:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Have to go in and get rid of the redundancy, since the contest and mom coddling are in both the mindset and origins--Blazer 06:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a point, I will look at that. Griffintown 06:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Organization

Ego is vague. This page should be renamed Chris and Egotism, and organized around the aspects of

  • Egotism: the motivation to maintain and enhance favorable views of oneself. Egotism means placing oneself at the center of one's world with no direct concern for others. Narcissism is an aspect of Egotism.
  • Hubris: extreme haughtiness or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of touch with reality and overestimating one's own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power.

--Dude 03:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Sometimes, vagueness is good. In the "Chris And ..." series, a vague title (like Sex) allows for 3-5 subtitles easily. This being said, the "Hubris" part seems to be covered very well in the Chris and hypocrisy article. Griffintown 03:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. I agree that Chris and... articles should have general names, but egotism is still a broad topic, and is more descriptive of the content of the article. It's not a coincidence that it's the bolded word in the first sentence =) Ego has other connotations; ego in general means sense of self, and here we're only concerned with the narcissistic aspect. We want to break out egotism (over-emphasis on self) as opposed to egoism (rational selfishness) which we don't really care about. The hypocrite article is right on target but its target is different; Hubris is better illustrated by examples like Chris not getting the high school art award and his anger at losing the Parappa contest. --Dude 03:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • We very well could call this page "Chris and narcissism" since narcissim needn't be clinical in nature. Hubris is something that tends to be associated with extreme arrogance that leads to one's downfall - Icarrus's hubris, believing he was hot shit because he could fly and stuff, backfired when his wings melted as he got too close to the sun. There's an aspect of hubris with Chris but it's more narcicism.
Some articles are going to be long. There's nothing wrong with that, given the breadth of the topic. There's some bits that could be trimmed but an article of this breadth isn't going to be short. A separate article for cataloging Chris's narcicism would be unorthodox, and not in a good way.
Remember, CWCki is about documenting Chris. It's important we document times when Chris does something really narcicistic (like insist his birthday should be a holiday, etc.) because that's our job. --Champthom 04:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Just thinking; we can move the Lists of examples in two distinct articles, it would clear the article for the worst examples and the psychological thinking. Griffintown 04:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I like this. Things that can be worked into "bigger picture" issues, like Christian Love Day should stay; but episode-by-episode analysis of the comics can probably be moved out. --Dude 05:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Done! Griffintown 06:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • NICE JOB! I think that gives us a good framework to expand on, and add detail to, without it turning into a mega-list again. List items will be better served on those pages. --Dude 06:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There's nothing like moving out 24,500 (!) characters out to relieve some pressure. ;) Griffintown 06:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


This article is way too long. The meat-and-potatoes is (and has been) a decent length, but the lists are getting out of hand. They're practically a catalog of fail, because everything Chris does has an ego component. This article should be pared down to analysis, and leave cataloging for other places. I propose two alternatives:

  1. Move the 'example' lists to a new separate page, similar to the list of things Chris fails at.
  2. Delete. They're redundant, since the entire CWCki is a catalog of his egotism.

You might say that means delete fail, too, but "List of failures" isn't really encyclopedic; it's there for comedic effect. Christian Love Day is a good match for a section on this article, but a lot of the other stuff is just making it overwhelmingly long. Thoughts? --Dude 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(out of order... see above --Dude 06:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC))