Talk:A Change to the Agenda

Xaaron, no one has anything nice to say about this comic but you. Have you actually read it? And, if so, have you actually read any of the other Beast Wars: Uprising fiction? If not, and I get the strong impression you haven't, I don't think your view has any validity. Continuum, which you brought up, is a perfect comparison. Like Continuum, this comic does not stand on its own. It has no new artwork and precious little new dialogue. What dialogue it does add is clunky and exposition-laden. We learn nothing about the characters we don't already know. Like Continuum, the sole raison d'etre of this book is to inform existing fiction. It's very reasonable to judge it harshly when it fails at the only thing it sets out to do. I notice that you didn't remove any of the actual errors, just the commentary about why releasing an error-laden comic is bad. Since we've had five editors besides yourself contribute to this article, if you strongly feel that this comic has merit of any kind, I think you should take it here rather than just cutting out the parts of the article you don't like.

As for the Dawn of the Predacus comparison, it's perfectly reasonable to point out that they didn't learn their lessons from it. It may have been IDW produced, but it was done for them, about their characters. I remember NightViper coming onto the boards to defend it. So they were certainly aware of its existence and reception. --Giggidy (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

Yes, I've read it; Yes, I've read Uprising; No, that doesn't matter. My edits were based on the content of this page, not the content of the story. As you said, I left in all the Errors. What I removed was the cruel, message board level, overbearing snark you added. They were subjective rantings that contributed no humor or genuine content to the article. --Xaaron (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

See Continuum, which you brought up. See The Beast. See Dawn of the Predacus. There are plenty of snarky pages. If you feel strongly, build up a consensus before vandalizing the page. --Giggidy (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

Giggidy, stop being melodramatic, Xaaron is not "vandalising" the article. Let's everyone cut it out with the edit war and, yes, have some discussion and reach a consensus. Jalaguy (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

Fair play, Jalaguy. I think my point is simple. This comic exists solely to do one thing: tell an origin story. There's no character development, no pathos, no artwork, literally nothing else. The one thing it exists to do, it does badly. Not even Xaaron is disputing that. To me, that seems worth a little snark. I'm not inflexible, I took out the snark in the header. But the notes aren't untrue or unreasonable, and do add to the understanding of what's wrong with the comic. Since Beast Wars: Uprising is a fairly obscure corner of the Transformers mythology, presenting the laundry-list of errors without comment actually robs the casual reader of necessary context. And using a screen capture comic to do it is just embarrassing in 2016. I know at least 3 artists who would have illustrated this for free and done a terrific job. It's a comic with zero effort that detracts, rather than adds, to the universe. This wiki has always been good at calling out things like that, and I see no reason that this shouldn't be an exception. --Giggidy (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10.

Wow. That works even when you're just typing it.

Giggidy, deleting stuff somebody else wrote is not the definition of "Vandalism". For instance, somebody creating a new page about Pussy Prime and his adventures with the Kiss Players would be Vandalism. Deleting that stuff would be removing Vandalism. In my opinion, your contributions descended to that level, so I was removing Vandalism by cleaning up your contributions. But sure, let's talk about this.

Nothing I removed was factual information that is typically contributed to an article, so the only legit debate here is a question of article "style". I found the general tone of your contributions to be offensive and unamusing. Anyone reading my contribution history knows I am not a major defender of Fun Pub, but this page just went too far. As mentioned, Fun Pub repeatedly said IDW was responsible for Dawn, so that part wasn't even accurate. And adding a quote from Jesse W about how he shouldn't be quoted about it is just twisting the knife. I left in the comment about unironic screencap comics, but other than that, this comic was just one bad/poorly presented idea on a two page spread. Very different from the sheer number of epic fails per page of The Beast and Dawn. Poking fun is one thing, but half the Notes section amounting to laughing and pointing was too much. --Xaaron (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

I don't want to get into a semantic debate. I felt that you ignoring the talk page in favor of an edit war felt like vandalism. But it's not worth dwelling on. I see your greater point about tone. I'm not inclined to kindness because, as the meme goes, you had one job, but it is relatively short and easy to ignore. Your current edit, a compromise, works for me. I think the Jesse quote is informative, as it does appear that even one of the FP creators is backing off of it, but in the interest of good taste I can understand not including it.

On the plus side, I made McFeely laugh, so I've got that going for me. --Giggidy (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2016 (EDT)