User talk:Christoph Schrader/Magic Page Specimen: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 66: Line 66:
: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.
: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.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 18:14, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
: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.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 18:14, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
{{Chris|euh=Your readings of what is relevant and what is not ring highly shallow.  Claiming that the name of a spell has no further relevance on the plot might be true for some, but untrue for others.  For example, consider how Ventus, whose name means "wind" in Latin, has not only a wind-based theme, but also one based on divinity as well, for his deck commands include "Faith" and "Salvation".  These reenforce his character as one of innocence and purity, and hint at his heart of pure light.  So no, the basic points of a technique are not all there is to say about it, I fear.  You did not, I hope, believe I would have included them without believing there to be reason to?  And did, I hope, think about what that reason might be before dismissing it?
In a well-executed game, abilities are often more than "mechanical concepts" as you call them, and the names given to them may sometimes be used to give a subtle bit of characterisation.  For the issue of theme versus explicitly using the spell, Roxas uses the same (or nearly the same) laser graphic Ventus does, and also fires a stream of pearl-esque objects.  As it has been shown between the games, an individual spell can take many forms, or even several within the same game (Cf. Days), and many enemy abilities are identical in attribute to the spells to which Sora has access without looking the same (and have the same effects, even, but with different graphics).
I concede that Salvation does belong in ''See Also'' (something I had forgotten to include), and also, upon reflection, that ''recurring'' and not ''semi-recurring'' is the proper word.
Please clarify your complaint about the first trivia point.
As for criticising you as a person, I felt the need to do so because your comments seemed decidedly less-worthy of attention then they might otherwise have been owing to the way in which they were presented.  Tactlessness is a fault, not a virtue -- that would be honesty.}}