Card Trivia talk:Number 74: Master of Blades

Deletion?
Fine, let us discuss. For what reason do you think THIS should be deleted?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 21:52, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on this discussion:

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Proposed_Changes_to_the_Wiki?t=20130317050843
 * It was decided not to add baseless assumptions on why Numbers have their numbers. The second point of trivia is unimportant. No other Number has, "This number is the first in the fifties/seventies/eighties" because it is ridiculous to document it. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 21:55, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous on what assumption? Are you saying this card is not the 4th rank 7 monster to be introduced, and that it is not the first 7ss Number in TCG?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:00, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that assumption is highly dubious, unconfirmed, and very unoriginal (like they would specifically plan for it to be the 7th one}. It is just a coincidence, and it was agreed not to document such assumptions. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:05, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as it turns out, they did. All Numbers have a meaning to them that must be found. So unless you can find another meaning to the number 74 sticking on Master of Blade's hide, people will keep denying the deletion notice.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:07, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * And I keep telling you that it was agreed for that to stop. Their meanings don't have to be found since it was getting ludicrous, with people doing random equations to get the corresponding Number. Unless it's completely obvious, we don't put up reasons for why Numbers have their numbers. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:11, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * That look fine to me, so it's non-sense to delete it. Konami is smart Company and they can make a plenty of pun intend with those number purposes and reference. If you don't want that, leave and start your family life. Those are better than have you in here and fighting over little cards and their relates. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:17, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you listen to me. The idea behind Numbers is having a deeper meaning behind them, no matter how tiny or lidicrous it may be. Otherwise we'd assume they were indeed placed randomly, which goes in contrary to the developer's words. Can you find another meaning behind Number 74 aside from that one?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:19, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't remember, the same thing happened with Number 44, and it was removed. I am just basing it as nonsense based on the admin's decision there. Therefore, this trivia point must go too. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:20, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recalled visiting Number 44's Trivia... Must be banned during that time it was created then burnt down to the ash. So no, it's stay if Admins decided to leave them be. Usually the articles that flagged as delete are usually vandalism and spammed, this one don't. So f-ing you and get out. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a [[Special:Contributions/FredCat100|t ]] 22:22, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, read the discussion on its trivia page then. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:23, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the trivia is still there.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:24, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still here, problem? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:25, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, not the whole trivia. Only some points were removed. This one has to be deleted since all of its points are against policy. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:26, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Look like other user has disagreed to you. So stop being ass and grow some good bones please. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:27, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. This is not a matter of majority. The policy is still in place. Anyway, can you call an admin to finish this? I don't know any of them, or I would have by now. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:31, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * You're digging yourself a shallow grave, my friend. What reason do you have to keep this discussion going like this?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:32, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * You and your army? What army? I got Hawk00, Gallis, and few other users that against your thought. Who would supporting you here and over there on Number 85? Nope? A group of ants? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:32, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have the admins, who have created this policy. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:33, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I also happen to think that this trivia should be removed. I thought it was established that the Wiki would be moving away from irrelevant trivia like this. That's certainly the policy being enforced on other pages.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:36, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, Fred, you should know better than to continue to engage in an edit war after a discussion has been opened. It's counter productive. If someone reverts the edit, just leave it. It can always be reverted after the discussion resolves.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:43, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant on what basis? Isn't that the point of Trivia, to display the tiny bits of information?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:37, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant on the basis that nothing supports the trivia. It may be the 4th Rank 7 monster to be released, but unless you have some evidence to support this was intended, it's speculation. This is how we end up with giant trivia pages full of crap like "This monster's Number is its Rank - its DEF + the number of times it was shown on screen in the anime." It was established that we would start to move away from trivia like this. Also, why does it matter that it's the first Rank 7 Number released as a TCG-exclusive? It's nothing special, since there are several other Rank [x] monsters also being released as exclusives in Number Hunters. We're not adding trivia to every single one of them.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:43, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think so, Joey, then call your Admin buddy and get that article devoured. It's just sit there, suck the thumb like a baby, wait to be killed and send to the hell. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:44, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * There you go.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:55, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care about what other are thinking about our conversation - I am asking you to get rid of the article or Delete Flag. With either one gone, this discussion can end peaceful, dammit. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  23:00, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Joey? Are you gotta pull the cannon or take the flag down? It just can't sit there forever, ya'know. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  23:16, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Fred, don't make me get aggressive. An admin has already said that the trivia is irrelevant, and it isn't any of your concern how long the deletion notice stays. Someone will get to it eventually.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 23:20, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Joey... if you're aware of Spiderman's "Spider Sense", then I am also possessing the one, which is called "Cat Instinct" - it's still on the high alert, like a wildly, untamed lion that raid the indoor building. This article has been sit for a while, so it's time to destroy it or get rid of the delete flag - once it's gone, my instinct will calm down, trust me. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  23:25, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe we're still discussing this. Fact remains, all Numbers have their numbers selected with utmost care. Even if it is a coincidence, it should be noted as a fact. Unless you can find another meaning behind number 74 that is branded on Master of Blades' essence, we have no choice but to assume that the order of the releases of the numbers was intentional.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 09:58, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Forget it, Hawk - Joey said that it has to go, then it has to go. And I am still on the alert - due to my instinct. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  11:31, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what other link to Number 74 can you offer?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 11:37, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to offering - If Joey said it's go, then it's go, period. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  11:39, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it really was at random?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 11:49, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was a good information - but it's too board, general and very common things that can be repeat posting on other articles, like an obviously news we already know. Joey's right about this reason so it have to go. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  11:51, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Then why destroy this knowledge? Would any of you have noticed this reference if it wasn't set up here previously?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 12:24, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Therefore, I would repeat what I told to IP-Addressed User; if you wish to keep this article, talk with Joey and try to reasoning him why you think that this article should stay. After all, he declared this article to be demoting to nothing. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  12:26, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me Joey's link.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 12:28, May 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that we are still discussing this is also bizarre to me. I've given you a lengthy explanation as to why this trivia is trash, which you've yet to respond to, not to mention the previous precedent that goes against this type of trivia, and if that wasn't enough, I also asked cheesedude about it and he agreed that the trivia was irrelevant. So, what's left to discuss, exactly?--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 12:40, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hawk believed that the Trivia in that articles are unique - only to be little irony, it's very common trivia we see daily. So go get Cheesy to delete that trivia if you still believed that it's trash and anything related to it. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  13:26, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

So, is everyone in agreement that this page should be decimated? 190.124.165.194 (talk) 03:46, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 08:37, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * And do you actually have a valid reason. That trivia is trash, and the policy clearly states it is against such trivia. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 18:11, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * You're implying that, but you don't know the meaning of it. Every Number needs a meaning to their numbers. Would any of you have thought of that link if someone did not mention it in the trivia section?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:03, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that this Number need a define of it "Number" to match onto it looks and name? This one lacked that idea. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  19:11, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's why the meaning behind the Number has to be found elsewhere. Satoshi Kuwabara said that no Number is chosen at random. Each is chosen carefully with attention to details. That means the fact the info on all Numbers in Number Hunters was released to TCG on purpose, in this order, which would make this information on it being the 4th rank 7 Number valid.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:29, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Who. gives. a. crap. The "link" is totally ridiculous and there's no evidence for it, nor does it matter at all. I'm getting sick of this absurd campaign for Numbers trivia and I'm going to request that an admin deal with this immediately.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 19:30, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * What evidence? It's the truth! A real member of the wikia staff would care! People have tried deleting that ridiculus deletion board several times before, and they will do it again until this is proven wrong.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:41, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * *clapping* Congratulation, that article is now dead. So now can we stop the discussion? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  20:16, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * You think you're out of the game just for that? You didn't even give a proper explanation other than your own sattisfaction over this!--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 20:25, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * The "game" is over. It didn't comply with new Wikia trivia policy and your argument wasn't strong enough. Get over it.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 20:31, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry for being an ass over this. I only wished for the argument to dead. And now it's gone. Therefore don't bring it up again, or if you wish to do so - continue it in my talk article. Alright? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  20:33, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's baloney! Your assumption that the information is just speculation is speculation itself. Why don't you tweet Kuwabara himself to confirm it?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 20:37, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, the issue is resolved and there's no further need to continue this discussion.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:22, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then you'll just have to bear with me complaining about it on this discussion and keep on saying how you don't care until I hit a nerve, because I haven't given up on it!
 * The essential meaning of the Numbers is the fact that each and every number selected bears a hidden meaning, a message, a story of it's own. That's what makes the archetype so amazing, because the entire story is hidden within only those 2 digits. 3 if you count the Over Hundreds. You can't deny that there are links, references and hidden stories in cards and special meanings to names in the entire game, so why should the Numbers be any different? They did not pick 74 because they just felt like it, they made each and every choice very carefully. 83 (Galaxy Queen) refers to Mother's Day, March 8th, 8th of 3rd, reflecting it's role in the story. Number 9 (Dyson Sphere), bonds the Arclights since 9 in roman numbers can be seen like a fusion of their code names, plus it's pronounciation in Japanese sounds similar to "sphere". Number 34 (Terror-Byte), named after a terrabyte, which is 1024 bytes, 1+0+2 with 4 equals 3 and 4, ergo 34, a computer utility unit for this computer beast. And you seriously don't care about Zexal staff putting up all that effort in telling us all that through these codes? Do you spit on that effort that much?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 14:13, May 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not so much that people deny there is meaning behind the choice of numbers. But we don't know what that meaning is. There are loads of ways you can find a connection to a card's number by looking at its other details. We don't know which one the creators chose. Posting something that might be it is like editing an article on an upcoming episode to say what might happen. It's speculation, which we don't allow. I think it's fine to post a number derivation, if you can prove that's how the number was chosen. e.g. the "Number 16: Shock Master" one was confirmed by Satoshi Kuwabara. on Twitter.
 * Just to nitpick, in Japan, Mother's Day is the second Sunday in May and depending on what standard you go by, a terabyte is either 1000^4 (1,000,000,000,000) or 1024^4 (1,099,511,627,776) bytes.
 * -- Deltaneos (talk) 17:11, May 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Like Delta confirmed, we required the right answer of the reason why Creator chose that way - This one don't have the "right answer" as of yet; therefore the reason why this article had to go. Patience is a virtue! -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  17:30, May 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well then, why don't you? Tweet in on the Creator and see if the guess was correct. As I said, your speculation that this was a speculation is a speculation itself, which you don't allow.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 18:15, May 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's speculation to post something that isn't verified. It's not speculation to leave something blank. e.g. when a new Booster Pack comes out, most often we won't know the full contents of the set immediately. It's fine to leave parts of the card list blank until they are known. It's not okay to post cards without knowing if they're in the set or not, just because nobody can prove they're false.
 * Creating a Twitter account and learning Japanese at a decent level or finding someone willing to translate what I need to ask is a fair bit of work... and I'm not even the one who wants to post the trivia. I have my own theories on certain parts of Yu-Gi-Oh!, but I wouldn't post any of them here unless I can find evidence that they're true first. I wouldn't post them and then insist that someone else find proof or disproof. -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:28, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * And what proof do you need? It IS the 4th rank 7 Number monster published.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:38, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not proof. By proof, he means a confirmation form an official source. But, it's not like we have to have proof to post it. If the reason seems likely enough, we'll still post it, even if it's not confirmed. For example, Utopia's 39 is based on "sankyū"/"thank you." A card being the 4th/7th/n-th of something is something we believe is not likely enough, for obvious reasons: it's dumb and uncreative. If they are going to give a meaning to every number, it isn't going to stem just from its Rank and order in which it's released, or the number of times it was shown, or how many times it was used, or what episode it was used in, etc. 77.69.2.220 (talk) 19:52, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and would you know they wouldn't?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:56, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't know; that's why he asked you for proof... Just because we don't know whether it's true or not, it doesn't mean that we will post it. 77.69.2.220 (talk) 20:00, May 16, 2013 (UTC)