Talk:Drift issue 1
Wing's clothes
[edit]The error as it stands is a bit unfair on Wing's clothes; his shoulder kibble is drawn in a way so that it can fold down flat when he's dressed up, and his knee spikes are actually still present, but wrapped in cloth (they've got the ropes tied in an 'X' across them, if you look). I'd say it's actually quite well-done, if you like that sort of thing. --Emvee 06:25, 12 September 2010 (EDT)
The zillions of cameos
[edit]Doubledealer Tipton is now saying every background character in this series is a generic. And also that we're all troublemakers for investing ourselves in the canon like that. --Detour 14:38, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
- "Canon" in scare quotes. What are people supposed to think when the editor uses "canon" in scare quotes!? "[Milne] doesn't have any control over what characters live or die." That's pretty bizarre. Do we need a new article called "editorial intent" to go with "authorial intent" for those events that look like they are happening but the editor didn't intend for them to happen? - Starfield 16:17, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
- This is a wiki. Fascination with canon is what we do. --abates 16:29, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
Clearly, Tipton was just saying whatever he could think of to get Detour to stop talking. I don't think the Wiki needs to weigh the merits of his statement about canon or generics. --Xaaron 19:16, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- And yet this behavior from him is par on course for how he acted during the AHM run... before I joined those forums. So, calling B.S. on your easy dismissal. --Detour 19:24, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- I'm not dismissing his behavior -- I'm dismissing its relevance to contributions on the Wiki. If you posted this for us to serious consider removing the fiction entries for Bulletbike, Staxx, etc because of authorial intent that they're just generics, say so. But if you're just looking to call attention to stupid things IDW employees say, take it to a message board. Or start a blog. --Xaaron 21:35, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- Yes, this was why I posted this. Because Tipton is saying they're generics. Should we take this at face value? (General consensus seems to be "no" thus far, though) --Detour 22:09, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- I'm not dismissing his behavior -- I'm dismissing its relevance to contributions on the Wiki. If you posted this for us to serious consider removing the fiction entries for Bulletbike, Staxx, etc because of authorial intent that they're just generics, say so. But if you're just looking to call attention to stupid things IDW employees say, take it to a message board. Or start a blog. --Xaaron 21:35, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
Laser-proofing
[edit]Deadlock is not laser-proof. His arm and shoulder are damaged where he was shot for the rest of the issue. (As a side-note, the stasis band is still on his arm, indicating why on-board systems like transforming or his arm guns were non-functional. Hence, "Two guns".) --Xaaron 19:16, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- Wow. A tiny little scratch. From guns that were blowing apart G2 characters mere panels earlier. --Detour 19:18, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- Quit trying to add every petty and minor flaw you can think of to McCarthy/Drift pages. It's embarrassing, and it makes the Wiki look juvenile. Deadlock was clearly not laser-proof. He took damage. It's right there on the printed page. That note is therefore wrong. Enough is enough. --Xaaron 19:38, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- Except I'm not even the one that added that. So stop pinning the blame on me for every minor bit of criticism that's aimed at Drift and/or McCarthy. --Detour 19:39, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- It doesn't matter if you added it. I didn't accuse you of adding it. The fact that you're reverting my edit when I remove it, after I clearly explained why it's wrong is the problem. --Xaaron 19:41, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- Yes, you did accuse me. "Quit trying to add". It's right there on your post. --Detour 19:44, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- Regardless of if you added it in the first place, you're still adding it back after I removed it and pointed out its factually wrong! I'm sick of having to go into an edit-war with you every time there's a factual or accurate change on the Wiki that happens to cast McCarthy in a slightly less negative light. Take your vendetta to an opinion forum. I'm removing the note again because it still isn't accurate (Turmoil's cannon, which is blue unlike the purple blasts hitting Deadlock, blew off Drench's head, not Jetstorm), and it's still really, really petty. --Xaaron 21:35, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- Yes, you did accuse me. "Quit trying to add". It's right there on your post. --Detour 19:44, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- It doesn't matter if you added it. I didn't accuse you of adding it. The fact that you're reverting my edit when I remove it, after I clearly explained why it's wrong is the problem. --Xaaron 19:41, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- The wiki is an equal opportunity flaw-pointer-outer. Just check the errors section on a typical G1 cartoon episode. "Deadlock is apparently laser proof" is probably biased, but I don't see anything wrong with "Deadlock barely gets scratched by cannon blasts that panels earlier were blowing holes through Autobots (and Jetstorm's head)". It just states the facts. And the facts, in this case, are a bit of questionable continuity. - Starfield 10:36, 24 September 2010 (EDT)
- Well, flaws pointed out by Xaaron are that I got Jetstorm and Drench mixed up, and Turmoil wasn't amongst those shooting since his cannon blasts are a different color from those shown in the panel. Otherwise... You guys are more than welcome to take it to a vote if you feel like it, but if not I won't push the issue further. --Detour 11:18, 24 September 2010 (EDT)
- Except I'm not even the one that added that. So stop pinning the blame on me for every minor bit of criticism that's aimed at Drift and/or McCarthy. --Detour 19:39, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
- Quit trying to add every petty and minor flaw you can think of to McCarthy/Drift pages. It's embarrassing, and it makes the Wiki look juvenile. Deadlock was clearly not laser-proof. He took damage. It's right there on the printed page. That note is therefore wrong. Enough is enough. --Xaaron 19:38, 23 September 2010 (EDT)