Talk:Ruined FOREVER

I see no point to having this article. --KilMichaelMcC 07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are 4 instances of Ruined Forever on this page alone. -Derik 07:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no point to having those, either. --KilMichaelMcC 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * JaAm has a page. 'Ruined Forever' is used ironically within the fandom- and this is clearly marked as a fandom article just like True fan is.  Ruined Forever is clearly more prominent than Dull surprise, though possibly not as widely as Neon.  (Which now that I look at it need its opening quote reformatted...)  My entire impetus for creating it was that Sntint made an ironic Ruined Forever joke on a talk page and I was like- "huh, why dont' we have a page for that?"  (Well, also I wanted to wash the bad tast of Don Murray out of my brain.)
 * Ruined Forever appears to rest comfortably within the range of existing articles on the Wiki, but I am content to allow others to decide. If a majority think it's not relevant to Transformers the article can be deleted, as always.  -Derik 07:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I say it's as relevant as Playskool, neon, and FIRRIB.
 * And Derik on the rebound to make me feel dumber. It's not enough that I misspelled my own screenname, he's also got to sign my posts for me.  Damn that Derik.  YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWN.  --Terrocon Blot 07:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the page. As already stated, a number of other pages already exist to explain similar fandom colloquialisms. --Sntint 13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see this article as explaining anything. It seems to exist purely to ridicule fandom behavior that we don't like, and thus I see no point to keeping it. --KilMichaelMcC 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to stay too. Where else would terms like Ruined FOREVER, Furmanism, and Chewed caramels be documented for all time, if not here?--Evil-yuusha 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do these fandom terms need to be ones that are famous/infamous, known or used widely? Then how about TFW2005's 'HE TELL ME' (in reference to that guy who claimed Peter Cullen was cast as RID Prime)? TFW2005 is probably the most prominent of the Transformers fan sites, as well as the one that Hasbro seems to unofficially prefer. I personally never even heard of 'dull surprise' until I read it on this wiki. --FFN 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor I. But I don't think we're just documenting memes-- each of these articles, Truk !Munky, Chewed caramels even JaAm are 'about' a belief/response/tendency in fandom- not just the phrase used to illustrate it.  Dull Surprise is a belief the masturbatory praise heaped on Superstar Funana was undeserved, JaAm is about the backlash against Dreamwave's style-over-sanity lack of visual storytelling, Truk not Monkey encompasses both knee-jerk hatred of BW and frustration about knee-jerks, and Chewed caramels seems to be about a desire that all TF toylines subscribe to some broad interpretation of G1's design aesthetic.  I doubt anyone put conscious thought into this, but the fandom-meme articles people found worthy of creating aren't just about the phrase- they're about phrases that expresses something larger about how fans relate to Transformers.
 * (I'm not familiar with 'HE TELL ME' and where it may fall with this.) -Derik 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think dull surprise is way too limited in use (basically just #wiigii! as far as I know) to really belong here, but Derik does sort of have a point about the article being about a little more than that. I also don't know "HE TELL ME" but it sounds like something worth considering -- claims of unnamed inside sources and all that.  --Steve-o 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, it was actually Peter Cullen as Armada Prime. The posts (being from 2002), no longer exists, but fortunately blitz_64 managed to save the posts for posterity The Saga of HE TELL ME and GoOP.
 * Around the same period, I recall some other idiot who claimed to be a Hasbro photographer and described crazy things like the Mini-Cons becoming body armour and Prime's minicon transforming into his Matrix. These claims, while totally false, were important because they apparently spurred Aaron to emerge as ORSON and totally destroy that other dude, IIRC. --FFN 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember that quite vividly indeed. The guy who claimed to be the photographer actually revealed himself over at the Allspark this year, actually.  Oh yeah, and I think the animu thing was 4Chan leakage .--MCRG 05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage
Has "ruined forever" ever been used seriously by fans? While it describes a real and annoying sentiment, I'm not sure I like basing an article on a phrase that was sarcastic in the first place. Interrobang 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded. -Rotty 18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure something very similar, at least, has been used. But regardless, you say that it describes a real sentiment, so, what's the problem?  Can you recommend a better title for the article?  Or are you saying the article shouldn't exist at all?  --Steve-o 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my vote is for not existing at all. --KilMichaelMcC 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I (and a number of others) used to think "Rapeing my childood" was only used for sarcastic reasons. Then I read the thread on the promo poster for Transformers Animated, which had a number or people using the seriously. --FortMax 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Has Trukk not Munky ever been used in a non Ironic/Sarcastic way? It's still a catchphrase used by the fandom, as is this. Both rate articles under the fandom category, IMo.--ZacWilliam 20:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The scream your head off in outraged panic / call for mass-firings or send death threats over something that has/will ruin/ed TF behavior of this article certainly was in evidence during Beast Machines- and I think the "sky is falling" aspect is amply evidenced by the sheer number of times fans have declared TF ruined forever. (And, clearly, been wrong every time, or every time but 1 depending on your belief system.)
 * If you have some other title you'd prefer for this article like 'Clicken-Little Syndrome' by all means propose it and see what people think, but the article speaks to a genuine (and highly mockable) aspect of fandom psychology.
 * And frankly, while the behavior itself is worthy of ridicule, the reason for it- an exaggerated concern for the health and future of the brand- is actually kinda endearing and speaks well of fans. At least their hearts are in the right place. -Derik 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Dini
I think accusing the fandom of saying the art style of Paul Dini the writer being used for Animated will "RUIN TRANSFORMERS FOREVER" is making the article simply too mean-spirited. I've never seen any individual display the idiocy we're accusing the fandom of with that line. -Rotty 05:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have. Scary, scary stuff.

Also, the last line of the entry seems to cut a little into the humor by overexplaining. Replace it with a "general hasbro idiocy" linking to "transformers" or somesuch?

Marked for deletion.
This is getting out of hand.

This page has become the epicenter of an edit war that has gone on for nearly a week now. As of the time of this writing, only six other pages link to this article. While I fully support the light tone of Teletraan I, and I understand that some explanation of aspects of the fandom complete the Wiki, I believe this particular article and debate at this point only detracts from the issue.

I DO agree that it was biased in the form in which it existed before our anonymous editor "friend" decided to change it, but I do not think that matters any longer. This article does not add anything inherently positive to the wiki, indeed, it does not chronicle anything positive or negative about Transformers itself at all. Its relation to Transformers is tangential at best.

By deleting this, we would not lose anything except the beginnings of what appear to be the modern equivalent of a Usenet flamewar. Deleting it, I believe, can only benefit Teletraan I. --Sntint 12:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I whole-heartedly agree. Detour 12:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I didn't feel this article was necessary, and I still don't. I agree that the fandom is full of idiots who never bothered to grow up after 1986, but our mockery of them doesn't belong in the wiki. Not to say that Mister "integrity of the characters" is right, though. Interrobang 12:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm putting in a vote for keeping it. It's a fun article to read, and it speaks a lot of truth in it's wonderfully snarky way.--Gouki 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Snarkyness can be fun but this article is just pushing it, IMO. Detour 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay, it's funny. Also, if you delete it then the terrorists win.
 * I would keep it. I think it describes a real sentiment, that needs to be pointed out as overblown.  JW 13:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit war was only between registered users and a single unregistered dude. I've fixed things, at least for the moment, by protecting the page from unregistered editors. If you're gonna get in a pissy editing war, we'd damn well better know who you are. --ItsWalky 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Our anonymous friend is from the Netherlands, if anybody cares. Interrobang 14:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)