Forum:Design vs. Appearance

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > Design vs. Appearance

The Inexistent - All the world's a puzzle, and I the one who made it so... TALK - EVIL has come... at last... So... the other day I was reading a Heartless article, and I got to the amazing design section written by Lapis, and I wondered, "if a Heartless is technically alive, and since it's not an inanimate object, shouldn't the 'design' section be 'appearance'?". Since I'm finding a time to do thhe audit, I would probably have time to change all of them over if you guys concur with this section title change. My main is reasoning is more "this is an item, so it has a design. This, on the other hand, is a character, so it has an appearance. A Heartless or Nobody is more similar to a character than an item, therefore it should have an appearance, not a design.

SilverCrono Well, I can tell who you are. — "Oh, you mean I was supposed to lie." "Lea, we don't have time for this." — 20:58, 24 May 2011 (EDT) I would say use Appearance for more...recognized characters, and Design for things the player doesn't take as much time getting to know and relating with. For example, Appearance for Sora, Design for Sora's Heartless. But that's just me, and if anybody comes up with a better argument, I'm all there.

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)

To add on to that, "Appearance" sections could be used when there really isn't any etymology to cover (such as Maleficent's Goons). --LegoAlchemist 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. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 11:14, 26 May 2011 (EDT)