Forum:Design vs. Appearance: Difference between revisions
SilverCrono (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
{{Maggosh|nathan=Appearance is tried and true. But what does an opinion from me, a "complete nutcase", matter?}} | {{Maggosh|nathan=Appearance is tried and true. But what does an opinion from me, a "complete nutcase", matter?}} | ||
:...huh? --{{SilverCrono/Sig}} 12:53, 27 May 2011 (EDT) | :...huh? --{{SilverCrono/Sig}} 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. --{{User:LegoAlchemist/Sig}} 14:02, 27 May 2011 (EDT) |
Revision as of 18:02, 27 May 2011
|
|
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)
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. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 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. When you said you were the fun one on the lane, who was your competition? The mailbox? - Erry 12:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
|
|
- ...huh? --Ag (Silver) - 47 107.8682 amu ~Crono 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. --LegoAlchemist 14:02, 27 May 2011 (EDT)