|
|
Line 12: |
Line 12: |
| {{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.}} | | {{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.}} | | {{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? | | {{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. | | 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.}} | | 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. |
| | }} |