User talk:Christoph Schrader/Magic Page Specimen

Learning
This section explains how the spell is learnt in each game in which it appears.

Recipe
If it has one, this section should include the recipe required to unlock the spell in Days or Birth By Sleep.

Casting
This section should contain where and how the spell appears in each game in the series, including a brief description of what it does when cast.

Enemies who use it
This section, self-evidently, lists enemies who use a certain sort of magic. It should be given in the order of Heartless, Nobodies, Unversed, and Bosses.

Other Uses
This section contains other uses of the spell's name that do not directly relate to casting it, and may include subheadings such as synthesis materials and gummy blocks.

Origin
This section contains two subsections -- one explaining its origins in the Final Fantasy series if the spell is not unique to Kingdom Hearts, and another detailing the etymology of the word, or its history as a part of the English language.

Quotes
This section contains quotes by casters of the spell in question said specifically in connection with said spell, and no other quotes should be included.

Trivia
This section contains, as it does anywhere else, a list of random bits of data on the subject.

Comments and Suggestions

 * "semi-recurring" doesn't make sense.
 * The third and fourth lines in the lead are waffling.
 * The Learning lines for CoM and ReCoM are needlessly long.
 * The Casting for BBS mentions Salvation, which is irrelevant.
 * The bit about the Holy-G is completely irrelevant to this page, and redundant to the actual Gummi's page.
 * The Angel Star bit is needless, and since it says "holy" rather than "Holy", speculative.
 * The Kingdom Hearts II section is much, much too long. All it need say is that Minnie and Mickey can cast it, and possibly describe how it works.
 * "Enemies who use" has always been a terrible section, and absolutely should not be on the final page.
 * The "Quotes" section is pointless filler.
 * The second trivia point is missing words, or placed wrong.
 * The third trivia point is completely irrelevant to KH, and even if it was, it should be in the etymology.

In general, the format we have now (1) describes what the attack does in the lead, (2) describes how to get it, and (3) describes what the name means. That's all the actual information about a technique there is - as shown here, anything else you try to throw in ends up being waffling, filler, or otherwise completely irrelevant. Glorious  CHAOS!  03:31, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

"Recurring" is the correct term. It does not imply that it appears in every installment, just that it appears in more than one. -- Neumannz ,  The Dark Falcon  18:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Salvation is not relevant. Salvation will get it's own page. It does not need to be covered here. That is a major misunderstanding of how the "see also" works.
 * Re:Angel Star: "Appears" is the clincher there.
 * Theme, yes. "Explicitly uses this spell", no, which is why I dislike it.
 * "What a technique does and how to obtain it are the basic points of information about it." - they are also pretty much all there is to say about these abilities, since they have no influence on the plot, and are purely mechanical concepts. Most anything further is waffling.
 * Yes, I am tactless. It helps get people to give up faster on changing my mind.
 * Let me put it this way re:etymology - any explanation of the name's history beyond where it appeared in FF or Disney is completely useless to us. Your complaint, then, boils down to "the header name does not accurately describe the contents". How would you change the header to resolve this problem?
 * EDIT: New critique - the first trivia point is, by its nature, useless. It is weasel-wording (one of some that generally aren't), preventing it from being either informative or worth being the trivia section.
 * You are the one who created a section for "comments and suggestions". I am trying to dissuade any work that will end up being wasted, since it is no good for either of us - you use up all your time writing something that will be left unused, and become bitter, and I have to revert the edit, wasting my time. I am sorry about this, but it is true - by and large, what you've done here will be of no use to the wiki, and criticizing me as a person is not going to change that. You can either address the criticisms of your work, or continue to spend time railing against me, but that's your decision. Glorious  CHAOS!  18:14, September 29, 2010 (UTC)