Talk:Plus monster

Secondary Type, not an Archetype?
I ask this because after I looked at the cards "Conduction Warrior Linear Magnum Plus Minus" and "Magnet Warrior Sigma Plus", where the Types should be listed, they are of differing lengths. I believe that "Plus" and "Minus" are secondary types, especially after comparing the Type texts of "Drawler" and "Clear Rage Golem", which are shorter than either of the aforementioned monsters. I'd like your guys' opinions on this. I'm refraining from asking Ryusui because he seems to be taking a break from translating Japanese card lores (he has a backlog of transcribing/translation request from me). He's still active, just a bit lazy, as he randomly transcribed the Japanese lore "Deuce" without me asking (though it was one of my older requests). I'd appreciate a person who can read Japanese to confirm my theory. If no one steps up, I guess we'd ask NeoArkadia to help. On a side note, I have also noticed that Template:Gameplay lists Union monsters, Toon Monsters, etc. as "Monster effect archetypes". Shouldn't they be listed as "Secondary Types", as seen by Category:Secondary types of Monster Cards? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 02:35, January 12, 2013 (UTC)