| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| {{SC|time=18:35, July 16, 2010 (UTC)|mad=I tried to implement them, but apparently, they only apply too characters. Don't ask me, I 100% agree with you. >:(}} | | {{SC|time=18:35, July 16, 2010 (UTC)|mad=I tried to implement them, but apparently, they only apply too characters. Don't ask me, I 100% agree with you. >:(}} |
| {{Dan da Man36|time=18:45, July 16, 2010 (UTC)|lion=I thought we agreed that Etymology sections were going to be merged into Design sections, like we did for Project Enemy. Omega Trinity's Etymology section hasn't been merged '''yet''' by the looks of things.}} | | {{Dan da Man36|time=18:45, July 16, 2010 (UTC)|lion=I thought we agreed that Etymology sections were going to be merged into Design sections, like we did for Project Enemy. Omega Trinity's Etymology section hasn't been merged '''yet''' by the looks of things.}} |
| {{LapisScarab|time=18:47, July 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=The etymology is a feature of the design. That's the reason I was given. Why does it matter if it has its own section? The etymology is still there, just under the Design section. There ''shouldn't'' be one on Omega Trinity, it should be part of the Design too.}}
| |
| {{LA|Vtext=>>
| |
|
| |
| So, in other words, perfectly fine edits are being reverted because of a stupid policy.
| |
|
| |
| This is getting sickeningly old. <!--</TNE>-->}}
| |
| {{SC|time=18:50, July 16, 2010 (UTC)|mad=I agree with LA. Etymology is a seperate thing from Design, which implies visual properties. I stick with making it a new section, like on the FF wiki, as seen [http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Ifrit here].}}
| |
| {{LapisScarab|time=18:53, July 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=It's for consistency. It was decided quite a while ago that all the weapon etymologies would be merged with the design.This is not the Final Fantasy Wiki, so saying "They do it like this" isn't a good argument. A design is not just the physical description. A creature/weapon's name was also something the developers put thought into and ''designed''. The information is still there. Seriously, give me a reason why having it as a separate section is any better. This is an argument over nothing.}}
| |
| {{SilverCrono|mad=Well, maybe because a weapon's name is different from it looks. It looks more professional on articles, and is easier to read. If you don't want articles to be different, I'd be willing to change them. Putting them in Design makes it look miniscule and un-important.}}
| |
| {{LA|Vtext=If it's an argument over nothing, then WHY is the ''admin's'' way to do it the RIGHT way? What's wrong with Etymology sections?! Nobody has answered my first question! Why CAN'T they be there?
| |
|
| |
| And I agree with Crono.
| |
|
| |
| To answer you I just think it's another and better place to separate interesting information. Why are you doing being technical by saying "it doesn't matter"? That's as good as slamming the door on our faces. It's not proving anything.}}
| |
| {{KrytenKoro|The content is being preserved. The only thing being reverted is how it's arranged.
| |
|
| |
| The name of a thing, especially in this series, is a huge factor into how it looks and what it's design is based on. For example, look at [[Star Seeker#Design|Star Seeker]]. This applies to items even more than to enemies.
| |
|
| |
| And to be brutally honest, if the design section is done ''well'', it shouldn't be ''possible'' to separate the design and etymology just by inserting a header.
| |
| }}
| |
| {{LapisScarab|time=19:04, July 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=Relax. This isn't some grand conspiracy against normal users. Who said the admins decided it? It was just a quick agreement that was made based on the way the etymologies are handled in Project Enemy. I don't really care either way because, as I said, the information it there either way. The difference is a headding and nothing more. The only problem is it's a big hassle to have to go back and change all of those. If you and Crono are fine with doing that, whatever, be my guest.}}
| |
