Forum:Design vs. Appearance

Forums: Index > The Realm of Sleep > 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)

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. Ay, dios mio! I might be late tomorrow. - Erry 12:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

LightRoxas - "Humans can be terrible creatures indeed." TALK - "Now, kill me... or I... shall kill YOU!" I'd say go for appearance for all living characters. Design just sounds funny.

maggosh The steel is forged... — "Souls as far as the eye can see..." "If you want light to rule over all, then you must rid the world of everything else." Appearance is tried and true. But what does an opinion from me, a "complete nutcase", matter?

...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)

LightRoxas - "Go ahead, you just keep running! But I'll always be there to bring you back!" TALK - "He made me feel... like I had a heart." You're taking that out of context. With Lingering Will, that is the official translation, so there is no reason to call it Lingering Sentiment. In this case, I can't ever remember talking about a character's 'design'. Also note that other wikis such as Wookieepedia and FFWiki both use Appearance.

1. Technically, "Sentiment", "Will", and "Remnant" all apply to the meaning of Shinen, as was pointed out prior. "Will" was only used because of "Will's Cage", the name of the map where you fight as Lingering Will in BBS. But that's changing the subject.
2. We aren't FFWiki or Wookieepedia; who says what they do is better than what we do?
3. For the last friggen time, we use Appearance for characters and enemies with no etymology. Design is used for items, weapons, and all non-character Heartless/Nobodies (for consistency's sake). We don't use it for everything.
4. The image coding in your Luigi template is messed up. --LegoAlchemist 15:22, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Um, Lego, it's easier to find an article that doesn't have etymology. All the weapons, all the Heartless, and a lot of accesories have etymologies. Unless you are talking about a different type of etymology, I don't understand where you're coming from. Enlighten me, if you could. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 16:53, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

LightRoxas - "Go ahead, you just keep running! But I'll always be there to bring you back!" TALK - "He made me feel... like I had a heart." True, it doesn't mean they do it better, but majority generally rules. Most wikis I've seen talk about characters having appearance, not design, so it seems more proper. Also, I can't remember ever seeing a etymology section.

KrytenKoro - "Because I knew something he didn't. I knew that I was lying. Seriously, sir. 'No silicon heaven'? Where would all of the calculators go?" TALK - Etymology sections were only active for a short while before they were all combined with the Design section, and then we started a project that included making etymology coverage, within the Design section, for pretty much all enemies and items.

@LightRoxas: I personally would prefer it if this wiki were in the minority. Who wants to see the same page format over every wiki they visit? We're more interesting if we're different.

@Inexistent: Um, Inexistent, I don't understand what you don't understand. I am referring to the etymologies, the meaning of a subject's name, that exist within the Design sections around the wiki.

But I digress; if, say, you get your way and every single enemy article gets their Design section changed to an Appearance section, what do you propose is done to the etymology coverage within those sections? Certainly, "Appearance" doesn't cover meaning of names and anything besides appearance that may exist within the Design section. Rather than argue, propose a counter-solution that is better than what we're doing currently, which is a simple coverage on all of the aspects of the being in question rather than just what it looks like. --LegoAlchemist 21:21, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

FF characters usually don't have "etymologies", they have "origins", although I believe that you are saying that they are the same thing. I really don't see why Heartless cannot be equavilated more closely to characters than items. That is my main quarell. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 21:37, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Since you are clearly not listening to a single word I say, I am dismissing myself from this argument to deal with a more pressing matter. Have a nice day. --LegoAlchemist 21:41, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

I have been listening, it's just that I didn't respond, because I haven't been listened to all that much either Fine. My basic idea was:

• Take the "Design" section of Enemy pages
• Replace title with "Appearance", as it is a more proper term, and I have explained why.
• Do not change the content, etymology can be contained in either Appearance or Design.
• Keep everything else the same.

I don't see what counter- solution I can really propose, other than this. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 21:46, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Counter-counter-solution: Get rid of "Appearance" entirely. It's a flimsy, wishy-washy term that is oh-so-limited. Each thing within KH, even the characters, has a healthy history of design decisions and background, from the clothes they wear to the name they have. Especially Sora, Riku, and Kairi. Using "Design" also allows for discussion of the process of creating the character, such as GrieverSora— - separating out everything but the looks means we must have "Etymology" and "Development" sections."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 00:13, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Oooh, I like that. --LegoAlchemist 01:02, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

If we took away Appearance entirely, what would the term be? Design? I hardly think we can have Design on living creature pages. As T_I said:You don't design an animal.Darkheart3 03:04, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

This is not a pipe

Similarly, Sora is not a human, nor is he alive. He is a character from a video game created and designed by a group of people, namely Tetsuya Nomura and Square Enix. Designed. Everything in a video game has a design, even characters, even Heartless. This is especially relevant considering our information is centered around the game Kingdom Hearts, not the world Kingdom Hearts, unlike the path the wikia-wiki is starting to go by.

The point is, that argument is invalid and getting sickeningly old. --LegoAlchemist 03:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? Late again. When I was writing the sections, I was thinking somewhat along the same lines as Neumannz and Lego. I used Apearance for estabalished characters, and Design for enemies. The only appreciable difference is that the Design includes the whole design (etymology, appearance, etc.), and the Appareance is just the appearance of the character. Going by that, Appearance is a much less useful section, if you think about it. It might "look weird", but Design lets us include more information in one section rather than scattering it through a bunch of little individual ones. So, yeah, I'm fine with changing all of the Appearance sections to Design sections. The fact that I needed to explain why they were different sections in the first place shows that its inconsistent and confusing to have both of them. The only issue I can see arising is that, on character articles, the Deisng might overlap with the Origin section, but it's not a huge problem.

Erry - Nothing is true Everything is permitted TALK - I am Ezio Auditore da Firenze, and this is my Brotherhood. ~ 08:27, 28 May 2011 (EDT) I say we use "Appearance and Etymology" if it disturbs you that they are separate. I'd rather we not use Design on LIVING BEINGs, anything with a heart, body or soul.

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? Why? That's needlessly wordy when "Design" means the exact same thing. Like Lego said, we're talking about video game chaarcters; even if Sora's a human in the context of the game's story, he is still a video game character. He was designed, along with everything else in the game. "I'd rather we not use Design on LIVING BEINGS, anything with a heart, body or soul." So then we eliminate the Design section entirely? "Anything with a heart, body or soul" covers every single character and enemy in the series; they've all at least got bodies. And if you want to get nitpicky, not all of the characters are living, per say. Captain Barbossa is undead, so are several Hslloween Town characters.

Erry - Nothing is true Everything is permitted TALK - I am Ezio Auditore da Firenze, and this is my Brotherhood. ~ 11:40, 28 May 2011 (EDT) Yes, but still they have a heart, body and soul, no? Even if they were *~DESIGNED~* by developers, they're still regarded as humans and such within the game. Design regards to something that was designed, manufactured to have a uniform appearance, while Heartless, Nobodies and Unversed fall into this category, they are still beings within the universe of the game. If you take this in a real world situation, would you *~DESIGN~* your cat? No, it has an appearance. Would you, yourself be *~DESIGNED~*? No, you have an appearance. Only things designed are objects.

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? ...That's not what design means at all. Something that is designed does not necessarily have a uniform appearance. All "design" means is that someone put some thought into what they created. Heartless, Nobodies, and Unversed are far from having a uniform appearance. Yes, I can design myself. I can wear different clothing shirt and can cut my hair in different ways. If you put thought into the way you create or change something, you are designing it. Neither the Design or Appearance sections are meant to be written from an in-universe perspective; they are from a real-world perspective. From a real-world perspective, all of the characters in KH were designed, often times with quite a bit of thought being put into those designs.

... (Keep in mind that this is coming from the expert on Design sections; he's written like half of the Design sections around the wiki)

I agree with Lapis. --LegoAlchemist 12:56, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

I agree as well. Lapis has changed my mind (I was going to message him later today if he hadn't seen this already, but he had). I would go with Kryten's plan, then. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 17:04, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

KrytenKoro - Most bears were content to live their lives, mauling and eating one, maybe two humans at most. "Mass-murder," as the bears always said, "is for the sharks." But not Barry. Barry was different. He knew that one day, he would kill ALL of the humans. This is the inspiring, tear-jerking story of one bear and the dream he dared to dream. TALK - I would just like to say that, personally, I believe that Sora was shrewdly designed by the game's creator, Tetsuya Nomura, and did not arise randomly through survival of the switches.

Neumannz — Looks like I'm gonna have to jump...! TALK — I work alone! Except when I work with Xion...which is all the time. — 23:22, 28 May 2011 (EDT)   Everything that Lapis said.