Talk:Mello (Death Note)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
[edit] "Ohba said"
Is repeated like more than 50 times through out this article. If someone could write it to give it some flair and creativity, and not blandness, we'd have a better article. Xuchilbara (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, sure, it would be nice to make it read better, but "Creativity" - no. We are here to describe. I admit that having something repeated more than 50 times is strange, so I welcome an attempt to fix it, but our priority is conveying information in an encyclopedia, not having a really flowery paper that is a total pleasure to read. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
By "creativity" I meant bringing some spice to something thats written in some parts, almost entirely, as "Ohba said", which is not very creative at all. Writing is creative in itself, and whoever wrote it seems to be lacking in that department. In writing you want to try and avoid using the same terms and expressions over and over again, no matter what the subject is. It would be as if I kept saying or typing my sentences starting with "In writing" which has almost no creativity what so ever. That was my point. Having a encyclopedia entry that is totally unpleasurable and lacking in writing, while repeating itself constantly, is also not something that should in a encyclopedia. Conveying info may be the top priority, but that doesn't mean it needs to be half arsed or below standards when doing so. It doesn't make us look that intelligent or respectable to boot. Surely we could word our sentences better, eh? Xuchilbara (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- 1. I wrote it. 2. Next time you might want to say "whoever wrote it should try to add more variety next time" instead of "whoever wrote it seems to be lacking in that department" as the former doesn't sound as personally charged. Focus on the content, not the person. Anyhow, I didn't care about trying to word it better because first and foremost I wanted the information there right away. Rewording is something to be done later. Also, it is better to sound dry than it is to go so flowery that it strays into Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Original research - both of which are unacceptable on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you misinterpetated some of my comments. I don't remember ever saying anything about making it "flowery", or anything that would have violated NPOV or OR. (And believe me theres some bad wiki articles out there, that are that bad.) I'm sorry if I offended you. Anyway, yes you're right. I couldn't think of the right words, but you put it there on the map. "Variety" would have been a better context. Xuchilbara (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, when I think about it "Variety" is the best way to describe it - What the phrases need are varieties of words just to make things more even and flow better :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can add that variety & flow when I have the time to tidiously go through the article. If not, I think you or another editor might get to it before me. Thanks.
On a another note. IDK how to fix the box to the right w/ Mello's picture in it. But its kinda messing up the text there. Theres gotta be a way to make it all even.
Xuchilbara (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.03 on Windows XP and the infobox looks fine - Do you have a screenshot? Have you upgraded your browsers? I wonder if it is a browser issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have Firefox. I have Explorer. But i have Windows XP. I tried to take a Screen but you have to upload the file here to see what I took. I'm not sure what the problem is then. :-/ Xuchilbara (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. It looks fine now. Thanks to whoever fixed it. Xuchilbara (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
