Forum:Design vs. Appearance

I would say that "Appearance" is for characters and near-characters (which might include Maleficent's goons...) and "Design" is for enemies that don't fit in that. -- 21:07, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Look at it this way: if we wrote an article about an animal, would it be appearance or design? 22:01, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
 * You don't "design" an animal. -- 22:05, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Exactly. 22:12, 24 May 2011 (EDT)


 * I'm against this.
 * I was under the impression that we use "design" sections to cover etymology, if needed. See Shadow for an example and Star Seeker for an exemplary use of combining "appearance" and "etymology" (even though this is a weapon article, it still gets the point across; this absolutely could and should be done with enemy articles). "Design" sections cover the design of the entire subject, including things such as appearance and etymology, while "Appearance" covers the physical features strictly. We could technically split them into "Appearance" and "Etymology" sections, but as we're able to effectively use them in one section, it's redundant.
 * In this case (@Crono), they are designed. They're monsters in a video game -- video game monsters are designed by someone. Not to mention they aren't animals; have you ever heard of an animal named "Aeroplane", "Shadow Blob" or "Missilediver"? -- 03:58, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
 * To add on to that, "Appearance" sections could be used when there really isn't any etymology to cover (such as Maleficent's Goons). -- 04:00, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

So, a character like Cid would get design? That doesn't make sense to me. Either way, though, a Heartless, especially a pureblood, is more similar to an animal than... an accesory. 11:14, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Heartless are essentially animals in the KH world, so I would give them appearance. Design is only to be used with inanimate things such as Keyblades, accessories, items, etc. not living beings. Also, Doorknob would have appearance, not design due to being animate. 12:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)


 * ...huh? -- 12:53, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
 * @Inexistent: Characters are the only ... "things" (for lack of a better word) to get both Appearance and Etymology sections. They should never use design sections; only items, weapons, enemies, etc. do. So as for Cid, no.
 * Is what I'm saying not making sense? Or am I just being blatantly ignored, as usual? We use design sections to cover both appearance and etymology. I got chewed out for trying to separate them before.
 * "_____ sounds funny, is weird, blah blah blah" is not a good reason to change it. If it was, we'd have changed Lingering Will back to Lingering Sentiment long ago. -- 14:02, 27 May 2011 (EDT)


 * 1) Technically, "Sentiment", "Will", and "Remnant" all apply to the meaning of Shinen, as was pointed out prior. "Will" was only used because of "Will's Cage", the name of the map where you fight as Lingering Will in BBS. But that's changing the subject.
 * 2) We aren't FFWiki or Wookieepedia; who says what they do is better than what we do?
 * 3) For the last friggen time, we use Appearance for characters and enemies with no etymology. Design is used for items, weapons, and all non-character Heartless/Nobodies (for consistency's sake). We don't use it for everything.
 * 4) The image coding in your Luigi template is messed up. -- 15:22, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Um, Lego, it's easier to find an article that doesn't have etymology. All the weapons, all the Heartless, and a lot of accesories have etymologies. Unless you are talking about a different type of etymology, I don't understand where you're coming from. Enlighten me, if you could. 16:53, 27 May 2011 (EDT)


 * @LightRoxas: I personally would prefer it if this wiki were in the minority. Who wants to see the same page format over every wiki they visit? We're more interesting if we're different.
 * @Inexistent: Um, Inexistent, I don't understand what you don't understand. I am referring to the etymologies, the meaning of a subject's name, that exist within the Design sections around the wiki.
 * But I digress; if, say, you get your way and every single enemy article gets their Design section changed to an Appearance section, what do you propose is done to the etymology coverage within those sections? Certainly, "Appearance" doesn't cover meaning of names and anything besides appearance that may exist within the Design section. Rather than argue, propose a counter-solution that is better than what we're doing currently, which is a simple coverage on all of the aspects of the being in question rather than just what it looks like. -- 21:21, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

FF characters usually don't have "etymologies", they have "origins", although I believe that you are saying that they are the same thing. I really don't see why Heartless cannot be equavilated more closely to characters than items. That is my main quarell. 21:37, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Since you are clearly not listening to a single word I say, I am dismissing myself from this argument to deal with a more pressing matter. Have a nice day. -- 21:41, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

I have been listening, it's just that I didn't respond, because I haven't been listened to all that much either Fine. My basic idea was:
 * Take the "Design" section of Enemy pages
 * Replace title with "Appearance", as it is a more proper term, and I have explained why.
 * Do not change the content, etymology can be contained in either Appearance or Design.
 * Keep everything else the same.

I don't see what counter- solution I can really propose, other than this. 21:46, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Counter-counter-solution: Get rid of "Appearance" entirely. It's a flimsy, wishy-washy term that is oh-so-limited. Each thing within KH, even the characters, has a healthy history of design decisions and background, from the clothes they wear to the name they have. Especially Sora, Riku, and Kairi. Using "Design" also allows for discussion of the process of creating the character, such as GrieverSora— - separating out everything but the looks means we must have "Etymology" and "Development" sections. 00:13, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Oooh, I like that. -- 01:02, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

If we took away Appearance entirely, what would the term be? Design? I hardly think we can have Design on living creature pages. As T_I said:You don't design an animal.03:04, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac193/LegoAlchemist/Magritte-pipe.png
 * This is not a pipe

Similarly, Sora is not a human, nor is he alive. He is a character from a video game created and designed by a group of people, namely Tetsuya Nomura and Square Enix. Designed. Everything in a video game has a design, even characters, even Heartless. This is especially relevant considering our information is centered around the game Kingdom Hearts, not the world Kingdom Hearts, unlike the path the wikia-wiki is starting to go by.

The point is, that argument is invalid and getting sickeningly old. -- 03:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)


 * ... (Keep in mind that this is coming from the expert on Design sections; he's written like half of the Design sections around the wiki)
 * I agree with Lapis. -- 12:56, 28 May 2011 (EDT)


 * I agree as well. Lapis has changed my mind (I was going to message him later today if he hadn't seen this already, but he had).  I would go with Kryten's plan, then.   17:04, 28 May 2011 (EDT)