Forum:Design vs. Appearance: Difference between revisions
From the Kingdom Hearts Wiki, the Kingdom Hearts encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(I'm pretty sure Doorsey's an expert on this matter; ask him.) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:I was under the impression that we use "design" sections to cover etymology, if needed. See [[Shadow#Design|Shadow]] for an example and [[Star Seeker#Design|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. | :I was under the impression that we use "design" sections to cover etymology, if needed. See [[Shadow#Design|Shadow]] for an example and [[Star Seeker#Design|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"? <!--lolno, you haven't.--> --{{User:LegoAlchemist/Sig}} 03:58, 26 May 2011 (EDT) | :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"? <!--lolno, you haven't.--> --{{User:LegoAlchemist/Sig}} 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). --{{User:LegoAlchemist/Sig}} 04:00, 26 May 2011 (EDT) |
Revision as of 08:00, 26 May 2011
Forums: Index > The World that Never was > 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. --Neumannz, The Dark Falcon 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? KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 22:01, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
- You don't "design" an animal. --Ag (Silver) - 47 107.8682 amu ~Crono 22:05, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Exactly. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 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"? --LegoAlchemist 03:58, 26 May 2011 (EDT)