Talk:Number C102: Archfiend Seraph

Should Not Exist
This page should not exist. There is no actual proof that Durbe will EVER Rank-Up Number 102, despite the fact that all of the other known Barians have (except Don Thousand). We have never seen or heard of Durbe Ranking-Up his Number and there is no proof as of yet that this card will be in the OCG/TCG. Therefore, this page should not exist. Not only that, we do not know FOR SURE that this monster will retain its original Type and Attribute. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 22:02, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Of course durbe will, probably when he confronts shark again, so probably not till episode 120 or 121. i mean durbe has to have a barians force card, because he is a barian. plus we have no proof cosmic blazer dragon will ever be in the OCG/TCG, but we keep it around. Superlmno (Superlmno (talk • contribs) 00:42, August 6, 2013 (UTC)) (Superlmno (talk • contribs) 00:47, August 6, 2013 (UTC)) (Superlmno (talk • contribs) 00:47, August 6, 2013 (UTC))

If he was going to Rank-Up, he probably would have done it during his Duel with Shark, but that is not the point. There is currently NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF that this card exists. If this card would have been mentioned before, then fine! But it was not and that is the reality of it. When we know 100% FOR SURE that we will see this card, it will get a page. For the time being though, this page has no reason to exist. Cosmic Blazar is a different story. We know it exists because it was actually mentioned in 5D's so it obviously does exist. This card on the other hand has not been mentioned. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 00:50, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

the reason he didnt use it in is previous duel with shark was because the duel was cancelled before he had a chance to play it. plus, 5ds is over and its still not out, and it wont show up in zexal since they use xyz. look, they barians are arrogant and try to match the people of astral world by having there own set of numbers and there own way to preform chaos xyz evolution, so since durbe is one of these arrogant barians, he will want to test is full power by ranking it up. plus when i first created the number c96 page, it was delete because of no proof, then a few weeks later, the page was brought back because there was. so, if you delete this, then odds are in a few weeks, we'll have your "proof" and they page will just come back anyway. Superlmno (Superlmno (talk • contribs) 03:43, August 6, 2013 (UTC))

The problem with that last bit of logic on C96 is that you were calling C65 C96. So there. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 04:06, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

What part of "that is not the point" did you not get!? This is about the card itself, not why it has not appeared yet. It does not matter if Cosmic Blazar EVER appears it was mentioned, we KNOW it exists, therefore it gets a page. This is the same case for another card that was mentioned but not seen in GX that also has a page because we KNOW it exists. The personality of the Barians has nothing to do with this card itself, so you are wasting your time by saying your opinion about them. There is absolutely no proof at all that this card exists and that should be the end of this pointless discussion and I know that there are others that agree with me. This page will get deleted, and if we ever do see C102, this page will be recreated with the actual proof of its existence. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 04:13, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

^agreed. While its obvious this card will happen and Durbe will get a Chaos Over-Hundred Number, it hasn't been mentioned, seen or revealed yet. Durbe is not dueling for who knows how long, so this page has no reason to be here. It can easily be recreated when the anime or OCG finally DO reveal C102.--RexGodwin (talk • contribs) 05:22, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

well i guess, but one question RexGodwin, when you say "While its obvious this card will happen and Durbe will get a Chaos Over-Hundred Number", that means you agree with me that durbe will rank up is monster? p.s. there called Over-Hundred Chaos Numbers not Chaos Over-Hundred NumbersSuperlmno (Superlmno (talk • contribs) 06:23, August 6, 2013 (UTC))

same thing. Durbes Over hundred will have a Chaos form like the other Barians.--RexGodwin (talk • contribs) 08:20, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

uhh slightly related, but has this "wait until corresponding episode airs" line of reasoning ever been used on this wiki - I ask here because I think it is actually crucial for determining articles like this, although I am inclined ot say at this point that we technically don't have proof that this card exists - I feel more comfortable with all of the original Numbers having there own page containing nothing until seen or mentioned, because those have been confirmed to exist... As for this ... I don't think I have anything else to add at this point. :/ -- slave (command) 10:58, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rex Goodwin for actually getting through to this guy. I also think that Durbe will Rank-Up his Number, but for now we should wait. In the meantime, some dude is creating pages for all the unknown Numbers? NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 15:38, August 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Gigifuso was doing it, then other people started tagging them all for speedy deletion, then I inquired to if it was alright just to leave them all there because as strange a it was making them early; all of the <101 numbers have been confirmed to exist, so even if we never see them we know they exist so may as well just leave them there - I mean there is the chance they would get made again if they were deleted although that is speculation; it isn't speculation that all numbers from 1 to 100 inclusive exist...
 * Oh and yeah I did start making a lot of them myself to try and get his attention as he seemed to have ignored my message. -- slave (command) 00:09, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

well okay, i guess i can agree with you on this, just so long as your with me that it will evenutally be ranked up, but i guess we still need proof. also when all 100 original numbers come out, they will go from 0-99 and not 1-100. Superlmno (Superlmno (talk • contribs) 00:21, August 7, 2013 (UTC))

Yeah I'm sorry but I don't think this page is justified at this point I really hope it does appear, but I gotta say that they wouldn't be lying or contradicting themselves if they didn't ever show/reference it, where as whilst they may never show/release/etc all of the 'original' numbers, they have already told us they exist - and yeah I am entirely neutral to whether its 0-99 or 1-100; IMO it seems typical of them for a Number 0 to exist, although i don't think that necessarily means that Number 100 is not part of them :3 anyhow long story short, I'm sorry but I don't think this page is justified - although I will be the first to say it is not doing any harm - although that isn't a sufficient reason around here (plus any fan-made card would use that as a justification) I think this page should go :/ -- slave (command) 07:09, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

New Proof(But it's shaky)
Ok you guys saw new OP Wonder Wings right?

Well there's a segment where each of the Seven Barian Emperors shows off their Over Hundred Number and its Chaos Counterpart. Durbe showed two figures - Glorious Halo and a shadowed figure. This hints - note, HINTS that we'll finally get to see Number C102!

But I understand policy. It's logic, but it's not "proof." Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk)  20:38, October 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. We don't know this is C102. Especially since C104 appeared with C65 in the OP and not 104. Number C103 is the exact same case. For all we know, that could be C94. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 00:37, October 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * No proof Rio has No.94 at all. But I agree it might not be C102 as its body doesn't look much different than 102, probably affected by a effect.--Shadowdarkone1 (talk • contribs) 04:34, October 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * The C94 thing was just an example, like Vector with C65 (not quite sure how that happened). The point being we don't know for sure. This could just be another ordinary (or Chaos) Number. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 14:40, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Protect this page
Since it's a counter-productive edit warring, how about protecting this page? IgorThunderMaster (talk • contribs) 19:00, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

English Name
I feel that the name "Star Seraph Archfiend" is a bit incorrect since the Japanese name for it is "Unholy Lightning - Noble Daemon". I feel that something like "Dark Star Seraph - Noble Archfiend" would fit better.--Supratim1986 (talk • contribs) 11:42, October 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * NeoArkadia suggested "Fallen Star Seraph - Noble Archfiend". The "Fallen" part works nicely with "Seraph" in the same way that "Unholy" works with "Holy". Any objections to using this name instead? Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 16:30, October 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem with me since it does fit in more than the Dark part which i just posted based on the suggestion of a member on NAC (i tried to think of a better substitute but couldn't figure out one, and the one i gave was just a suggestion and didn't think it would actually be used). Also regarding the Kanji, i feel that it would be different because of the whole Unholy Lightning part. I mean the Kanji 光天使 translates to something like 'Light Angel'. So, i believe that Unholy Lightning should have a different Kanji based on this fact.--Supratim1986 (talk • contribs) 20:32, October 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm going to move it now, then. No one's objected. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 04:39, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Rename?
If we're going to rename this, we should try to include the word "Archfiend" to prevent confusion. I would suggest just going back to "Number C102: Star Seraph Archfiend" or leaving it as-is. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 17:18, October 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Woah, woah, why the sudden decision for a rename now? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 17:38, October 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Length is a problem only for the TCG. It's fine as it is now. Simple Guillotine (talk • contribs) 17:53, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

i think that we should remove the - in this monster name since no number has a - in its card name in the TCG. (Superlmno (talk • contribs) 23:57, October 22, 2013 (UTC))


 * What makes you think this is the TCG name? This is merely the translation of the Japanese name. If it were going to be the TCG name, then "Number 25" would be called "Number 25: Fullmetal Photoglide - Focus Force". The name we have right now is obviously not going to be the TCG name. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 00:54, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * still i fell that slash is unnecessary (Superlmno (talk • contribs) 15:21, October 23, 2013 (UTC))


 * That is your opinion. And it's a hyphen. Until it's released, I say we leave it be. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 21:51, November 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * While I usually support shortening the names of "Numbers", I really feel like the old article title was a perfect localization. That said, I'm glad "Fallen" is still included. I would prefer to move it back to include "Noble" as well. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 17:58, November 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * There is the fact that its base form was "Glorious Halo" in Japanese, and we only got "Sentry" in the TCG (presumabely because they liked the whole "S" thing they had going on, not sure now you'd get that otherwise.) Whatever the translation, "Noble Archfiend" is likely going to be one word. It also depends on whether the characters used are the same as those normally used on wrds translated to "Archfiend," doesn't it? I don't know, it's always hard to speculate on Japanese names that are part of archetypes. I mean, Shark Drake one should have really guessed what the English name would have been, seeing as the status quo for many Japanese names is to have a name in Japanese...that is pretty much what the following name is in English and to me rather uneccessary. Heck, one can translate Utopia's Japanese name as "Hope, King of Hope." Sanokal K-T (talk • contribs) 18:38, November 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless, until the card is released in Japanese and then in English; this current name is speculation. Why does the talk page have a different name than the card anyway? --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 18:15, November 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * The card page was moved twice in the last two days and the talk page got lost in there somehow. Fixed. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 18:25, November 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * The "光堕天使" (Anhōrī Raitoningu) part should be changed "Star Fallen Seraph" as the Kanji translates to "Light Fallen Angel". It's not possible to give this card the words with "S" in starting of each words in its name (exception of "Number C102" part).Shadowdarkone1 (talk • contribs) 14:34, December 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * they could always put "This card is treated as an Archfiend at all times" text in the effect like they did for Summoned Skull so Archfiend isn't necessarily going to be in the nameDreadKaiser (talk • contribs) 20:56, December 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * For all we know it might not count as the usual Archfiend at all. Does this card really fit under that Archetype, name wise?--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 05:45, December 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * It has "デーモン" in its Japanese name, so its an "Archfiend". The only reason "Summoned Skull" got that clause was because they won't rename the card. Do you know how many "Archfiends" in the TCG have not had "Archfiend" in their name since it became an archetype? Zero. Every single one of the ones with other names pre-dates it. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 05:50, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

I realize the TCG has a habit of using names differing the OCG and the OCG rulings can still apply to them; but wouldn't it sill make more sense if this was called "Fallen Star Saraph"? --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 18:48, December 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * They could do that, especially if they can get confirmation for their Japanese counterparts that won't be any generic "Star Seraph" support that could affect Xyz Monsters. But we shouldn't do that unless we have to. Fact is, this card isn't a "Star Seraph". Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 22:06, December 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically, by the rules of what makes an archetype an archetype as describe to me a couple years ago, it is a "Star Seraph" monster as it is still a "Holy Lightning" monster. Holy Lightning is still a part of its Japanese name, and as such is still a "Holy Lightning" monster; which still makes it a "Star Seraph". --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 00:08, December 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * It translates to "Unholy Lightning". The "holy Lightning" part of the name is spelled differently on this card than it is on the others, so it doesn't qualify (which was impossible to tell until we got the actual card image. The dialogue prior told us nothing). Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 00:14, December 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not spelled differently. It's still "Holy Lightning". Just like how Spiritual Forest, Ritual Buster, and Ritual Weapon have the same core part as the Gishki; This card has part of it's name that it shares with the Star Seraph, "Holy Lightning". I'm sorry Cheesedude, but it's still a Star Seraph. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 00:22, December 12, 2013 (UTC)

It isn't really a Holy Lightning at all, if you pay attention to the kanji. "Holy Lightning" is written as "光天使" on the Seraphs, while "Unholy Lightning" is written as "光堕天使" on this card. So while it does say "Holy Lightning" phonetically, that extra character inserted in the middle means it isn't part of the Star Seraphs. A Shining Star appeared!! (Make a Wish)  00:41, December 12, 2013 (UTC)