Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dilnazen"
From PSU Cyril Wiki
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* I applied the edits I mentioned in the above post in this chat page, which made that first "paragraph" more of a sentence. It seems to work as a single paragraph so I put them together. Thinking about it, there's nothing particularly important about the punch attack being like all those other monsters that it seemed worth nothing that it shared the punch attack with those creatures. Perhaps it might be simpler to note that it uses the same animation sequence as the above noted creatures, this saves the bother of having to spit that list of critters out each time. It seemed a touch redundant to have every mention of the same creature link to the page for it, so I edited it so the first mention of a particular monster links to its page, each additional mention is not a link though. I expanded out the abbreviations while I was editing it. That bullet in the middle of the article however seemed entirely extraneous. I would not be sure that it flinching from knockback is entirely a "weakness" the more I think about it. Considering the fact that most other things fall flat on their ass in the face of those attacks which is even more debilitating, one could consider it's flinching a partial resistance, but then I digress. I will have to work on a sightings table for this article later, if someone does not beat me to the punch or if I do not get distracted with filling out more weapons articles. [[User:Ccelizic|Ccelizic]] 23:22, 11 June 2007 (BST) | * I applied the edits I mentioned in the above post in this chat page, which made that first "paragraph" more of a sentence. It seems to work as a single paragraph so I put them together. Thinking about it, there's nothing particularly important about the punch attack being like all those other monsters that it seemed worth nothing that it shared the punch attack with those creatures. Perhaps it might be simpler to note that it uses the same animation sequence as the above noted creatures, this saves the bother of having to spit that list of critters out each time. It seemed a touch redundant to have every mention of the same creature link to the page for it, so I edited it so the first mention of a particular monster links to its page, each additional mention is not a link though. I expanded out the abbreviations while I was editing it. That bullet in the middle of the article however seemed entirely extraneous. I would not be sure that it flinching from knockback is entirely a "weakness" the more I think about it. Considering the fact that most other things fall flat on their ass in the face of those attacks which is even more debilitating, one could consider it's flinching a partial resistance, but then I digress. I will have to work on a sightings table for this article later, if someone does not beat me to the punch or if I do not get distracted with filling out more weapons articles. [[User:Ccelizic|Ccelizic]] 23:22, 11 June 2007 (BST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Why bother saying knockback and throwback? It means the same thing essentially to knock something back and throw something back. You could argue that knockdown is different, but in the end the reader is not an idiot, if you say "knockback" with what gets the beast off footing they'll understand. So why not just stick with saying just knockback? Agian, I point to the points agian I stated before. Is it essentially we say it has so and so's punch attack. If you just state out it's attacks and abilities without crosslinking it left and right to different baddies, the reader can figure out what it does precisely without looking up other monsters. In fact I would encourage you to explain what this bad boy can do without saying it's like other monsters. Pretend this is the first time the reader has encountered any monster and he doesn't know what a Bil De Vear is or what a Jarba is and explain the attacks. You could make a single note early on that this creature shares their animation, but then go through and explain what it does without stating "jarba's punch" "bubba's belly blast." "Ned's ninja vanish." Just say, it punches things, it jumps, and flings balls of darkness. Though, in more elaborate ways then that. [[User:Ccelizic|Ccelizic]] 21:29, 12 June 2007 (BST) | ||
Revision as of 20:29, 12 June 2007
Breaking it into two paragraphs is one thing, but is the bulleting absolutely nessecary? Third sentence of the first paragraph is positively redundant. Ccelizic 19:58, 11 June 2007 (BST)
- I applied the edits I mentioned in the above post in this chat page, which made that first "paragraph" more of a sentence. It seems to work as a single paragraph so I put them together. Thinking about it, there's nothing particularly important about the punch attack being like all those other monsters that it seemed worth nothing that it shared the punch attack with those creatures. Perhaps it might be simpler to note that it uses the same animation sequence as the above noted creatures, this saves the bother of having to spit that list of critters out each time. It seemed a touch redundant to have every mention of the same creature link to the page for it, so I edited it so the first mention of a particular monster links to its page, each additional mention is not a link though. I expanded out the abbreviations while I was editing it. That bullet in the middle of the article however seemed entirely extraneous. I would not be sure that it flinching from knockback is entirely a "weakness" the more I think about it. Considering the fact that most other things fall flat on their ass in the face of those attacks which is even more debilitating, one could consider it's flinching a partial resistance, but then I digress. I will have to work on a sightings table for this article later, if someone does not beat me to the punch or if I do not get distracted with filling out more weapons articles. Ccelizic 23:22, 11 June 2007 (BST)
- Why bother saying knockback and throwback? It means the same thing essentially to knock something back and throw something back. You could argue that knockdown is different, but in the end the reader is not an idiot, if you say "knockback" with what gets the beast off footing they'll understand. So why not just stick with saying just knockback? Agian, I point to the points agian I stated before. Is it essentially we say it has so and so's punch attack. If you just state out it's attacks and abilities without crosslinking it left and right to different baddies, the reader can figure out what it does precisely without looking up other monsters. In fact I would encourage you to explain what this bad boy can do without saying it's like other monsters. Pretend this is the first time the reader has encountered any monster and he doesn't know what a Bil De Vear is or what a Jarba is and explain the attacks. You could make a single note early on that this creature shares their animation, but then go through and explain what it does without stating "jarba's punch" "bubba's belly blast." "Ned's ninja vanish." Just say, it punches things, it jumps, and flings balls of darkness. Though, in more elaborate ways then that. Ccelizic 21:29, 12 June 2007 (BST)
