Talk:Number

'''Talk Pages are only for the discussion on how to improve the article. Please post your general discussion on the Forum.'''

Different Numbers Symbol image
The "4" is incorrect, compare it with the one on No. 40 and No. 34 and you'll see the difference. I don't know anything about uploading image to here and replacing the incorrect one with the correct one, though. So can someone here please do it? It's kinda odd to see the wrong symbol there.....Order (talk • contribs) 05:07, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

THIS, so much this. Why no one is doing this? It's even more obvious now that we have 64, 44, 46, 47, and 49, all shows that the 4 on this image

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120119152331/yugioh/images/d/dd/Numbers.jpg

is the wrong one. For some reason 42 has the wrong one, but considering that so far 42 is the only one, I think it's safe to say that for 42, it's just a one-time mistake.203.7.171.10 (talk) 13:40, June 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Number 34 was just unique design, nothing big. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  13:41, June 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * ....*facepalm* No one is talking about 34's unique "3" design, the topic was about the "4". Heck, even Order's post up there starts with "the 4 is incorrect".203.7.171.10 (talk) 13:53, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

No. vs. Numbers
So, I noted we add "No." instead of "Number" in "translated" for the cards' articles. That's wrong. The Kanji is indeed "No.", singular, but the Furigana indicates "Nanbāzu", which's "Numbers", plural. The right thing to add in "translated" would be "Numbers", not "No.". If nobody has objections, I'll be fixing it in the Numbers' articles. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 20:56, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, we do say Black Feather instead of BF, or other similar cases... Mad Rest 20:57, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * And be sure to add a colon or something similar; since it's now Numbers, it's less distinguishable. Mad Rest 20:59, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, I noticed the manga uses No. Mad Rest 21:00, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * A colon? Where? LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 21:52, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * You know, the same as the TCG name. Mad Rest 21:56, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * English Name, you Legendary Pokémon player. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:57, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, sure. xD
 * On a site note, I'm an old Digimon fan, Fred. xD LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 23:05, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Is "No." not a valid abbreviation of the word "Numbers"? I would be in favor of keeping it that way, especially considering the English manga uses it. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 01:23, January 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, Dèjá Vu all over again! First me, now him got all that screw up. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  01:27, January 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said on Cheese's Talk Page, we don't call "Black Feathers" "BF", "Rank-Up Magic" "RUM" or "Ally of Justice" "AOJ". "No." is a valid abbreviation but not the actual name. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 20:45, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Numbers
if somenody can change number 72's name to Line monster Chariot Hisha cause i dont know how thanks.(67.180.147.2 (talk) 03:06, January 10, 2013 (UTC))
 * It's already enlisted there. Just look at "Original" topic. That's not so hard to find if you looked careful. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  03:16, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

C105 Sealed
To be honest, that doesn't really look like a sealed form, more like if C105 was energy to begin with or the Barian energy is being sent to possess 105. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 20:03, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Segregation?
Dare I even ask, why do Chaos Numbers for the "Over-Hundred Numbers" have their own section? It's using a completely fanmade term (Over-Hundred Number C), only contains two entries, of which one didn't fully appear. They're still Chaos Numbers, so shouldn't they be grouped until an official term is available? So there would be "Numbers", "Over-Hundred Numbers" and then "Chaos Numbers", which would contain all four currently known? -- ~ Mana ~   (Talk)   01:11, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch this. I just noticed a random user did it because "he thought they should be different". I'll fix his mistake. -- ~ Mana ~   (Talk)   01:15, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

that user was me and i think it should be different, even with fanmade names, i mean in sailor moon, the terms inner solider and outer solider where fanmade and everyone went along with it, so why cant we do it here? superlmnoSuperlmno (talk • contribs) 19:55, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

"Alien" Script?
The "alien" script for the Numbers is actually highly stylized katakana. Can anyone provide more samples? I know we've got pics for Utopia and Galaxy Queen, but I'll admit some things about it aren't entirely clear to me yet...--Ryusui (talk • contribs) 21:20, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * They're being discussed over at Forum:Astral's Language. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:58, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Tachyon Drive
So, I've been thinking. Since the Utopia archetype is related to the Numbers, would it be possible for Tachyon Drive to be in relation to the Numbers because the Tachyon Dragon archetype is consistant of Numbers 107 and C107. 107.3.109.88 (talk) 17:55, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

"Tachyon Drive" supports "Tachyon Dragons", not an individual one, so it doesn't get classified as related. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 18:01, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Sections
Maybe we ought to make a section to those from Season 1 and those for season 2? It would part them and it would less clutter the first headline. E n e r g y X ∞ 21:34, February 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * I just don't think it makes sense to split up the contiguous Numbers. The first hundred should be presented on the page in consecutive order.--Ryusui (talk • contribs) 21:38, February 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to do so either. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 23:40, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Number 66's Sealed Form
I think we can see the Sealed Form for Number 66 in the preview for episode 94. The big gold question mark at about 0:19 .--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 17:45, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Template/table discussion
Hello, I've come to attention that a user has once edited the Number's page, this he also edited the template which it looked very organized. Could we debate which one we could use? This is the template the User:Avatarr posted. -- ~N S~  22:30, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 22:44, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that looks much more organized. I like it. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 01:03, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * On the new layout could we take Images from the Manga that shows the Number for the likes of 63 and 72 if available until a colour one is released, just so that it fits in a bit better than just having the number written in the coloum. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 20:20, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Legendary Numbers Section?
is it to soon to add legendary Numbers to The Section or Do We Have to Wait till the episode airs and explains if its a legendary number or over 100 numbers?(107Number (talk • contribs) 21:39, April 8, 2013 (UTC))


 * Best to wait to see. We'll see what does that mean. E n e r g y X  ∞ 21:43, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

It referring to 7 cards it appears. DracoX (talk • contribs) 17:07, April 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * N44 is one of those Legendary Numbers, so it isn't worth creating a section. -- ~N S~  13:27, April 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * But should they be mentioned in the story section soley because they have been refered to as 'legendary numbers' in the anime. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 15:13, April 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * We can put it on Numeron Code page, because they might connection to it. In Dual-ism of Mirrors, it was seen the 7 Legendary "Numbers" were circling the Numeron Code.--Shadowdarkone1 (talk • contribs) 23:08, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

permission to add hd pictures of the number symbols
can we change the number symbols some of them are blurred in Bad images I Just Uploaded an HD Picture of Number 34 symbol and added to its section is it ok to replace all the number symbols with hd pictures some a blurry a bit I want hd pictures like that one I added of terror byte (107Number (talk • contribs) 20:06, April 27, 2013 (UTC))

The table
I still think we have to part the table to Numbers in first and the ones in second season. The one we have now is cluttered and the other has 5 members, so yeah, it would make this overhaul. E n e r g y X ∞ 19:19, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

- Absolutely not. The Season 2 Number Monsters are no different than the original season's Numbers, however, how could Vector hold Number 66? Barians weren't supposed to hold Number cards, right? That's the only major difference between Season 1 and Season 2's Number Monsters.141.0.8.158 (talk) 23:16, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Sub Number Section
Het shouldn't the Over-Hundred Numbers be in they own section like the Legendary Numbers. That will make them easier to find and more support.

I say we leave the way is is now as they are different to the original Number and can't be absorbed by Astral.im gay (talk • contribs) 22:32, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Number C on archesupport
I think we should place the Number C in the archetype section as related, not together as members technically. It would make more sense.--im gay (talk • contribs) 23:47, June 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * We can't. Any and all "Number" support cards can target "Number C" monsters. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 23:53, June 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's like we are trying to creating the article that can collect all support cards for "XX-Saber", but they are also known as "X-Saber". So I am sorry but to say this, your request is denied. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  00:05, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

94's owner
does anyone have a screen of Shark giving Rio 94 because I don't remember seeing him give it to her as he was more concerned with her being unconcious to give her a card only he has been seen in posession of.Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 21:45, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

Set Addition
http://kugatsu.exteen.com/20130625/duelist-pack-15-kastle-ryoga-kamishiro-rio-kamishiro

Whilst I was looking for some info on this set I found this that list No.73 as included in DP: Kastle/Kamishiro. COuld some one variefy the source before its added because I'd rather add information that way and I don't understand the language that its written in. Thanks :). Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 14:39, June 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to stop believing every blog that you see. That is unconfirmed, and as far as I can tell unsourced, information. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 15:03, June 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Like Goldy say, the best source(s) you should believing in are; Konami site (for rulings and sets) and Shriek (for card images and names). All other are just garbage and make-up. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  15:13, June 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ark is saying its real, but the only source thus far is a BBS link. A product page will probably pop up soon enough. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 17:35, June 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * It was deleted from that topic. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who posted it there and this guy are one and the same. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 17:38, June 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't. I'm talking about Ark's post in that topic. I also checked with Ark afterwards, there actually is a source besides what was deleted. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 17:40, June 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * We weren't debating the existence of the pack, but rather 73's confirmed inclusion in it. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 17:45, June 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 17:53, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

seal forms?
can we add this to seal forms if they dont have a seal form it says none why not add ? i like it (ZombieLionel (talk • contribs) 14:15, July 6, 2013 (UTC))

Because it isn't an unknown, it simply doesn't exist. Jet-Black Nova (talk • contribs) 14:30, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Main Picture
Shouldn't the Japanese picture stay, simillar to how we use the Japanese Anime versions when cards aren't released in both the OCG and TCG? It looks better than the English one anyway --FruityMan99 (talk • contribs) 07:40, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I doubt im alone when I say I despise seeing the friggin 4kids Altered images as a main page image, same scene too, that switch really adds nothing and just hurts more then anything. it needs to goDreadKaiser (talk • contribs) 08:10, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph, Number owned, Named etc.
Since the recent edits made to the mentioned section I feel that it may be starting to look a bit cluttered and perhaps a new way should be suggested so that it just gives a very brief overview of what is known as apposed to as it stands as posting this in which it gives lists of Number Monsters for some of the mentioned catagories (i.e. the 5 numbers from NUMH). I also feel that this may be confusing to some people reading it. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 15:12, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Manga Faker Number Evidence
This is the scan from the Manga chapter that I have suggested as evidence for ,y recent addition to the Table in regards to what numbers are owned by faker. NOte that though 26 and 92 would be read as 93 and 36 respectivley when inverted, all the other numbers are facing the same way in the image. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 21:16, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't even implied. In that page, Faker just generally talks about the Numbers, not says "these are the Numbers that we have". With no evidence, assuming that those are Faker's Numbers would be speculation. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 21:20, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok if it needs undoing I'll undo it, but just as a note would the inclusion of No. 82, which we know as being in Heartlands possesion would that not add validity onto who owns the others on the page? Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 21:25, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Not enough to actually say that they belong to Faker, in my opinion. There's still no confirmation that those Numbers belong to them. In chapter 19, there's a page where Luna also talks about the Numbers and some appear in the background (page 11); this includes Number 60, which appears in the page with Faker as well, and Number 13, which belongs to Shadow. This proofs that random Numbers on the background are just illustrative. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 21:39, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok then consider the edit undone Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 21:47, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm, would it still count as they appeared in manga? It could be written on card pages when they appeared. E n e r g y X  ∞ 23:36, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, they did appear, but just for illustrative purposes. It counts as an apparition. Although I'm not sure if we could consider that a Number debuted on that chapter; the actual card wasn't even shown, just a blank card with a big number on it. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 00:06, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

i also saw 57, i guess that means tri-head dust dragon appears in the manga Superlmno (Superlmno (talk • contribs) 02:25, August 21, 2013 (UTC))

Unknown Numbers
I have just thought if the number of unknown numbers was right, so I made a list of numbers from 1 to 100. on the page, it says there is only a total of 31 numbers that are unknown, however I came up with 44 unknown numbers. What happened to the other 13 unknown numbers, or will they be revealed later on? --I may not be perfect, but thats who I am. (talk • contribs) 16:21, August 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * The page shows Unknown Numbers that are in a Characters possession not how many a re actualy unknown, so the 33 that are shown on the table are in Yuma/Yagumos possession, where as the other 13 are currently completely unknown, i.e. not known who has them or where they are. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 18:32, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, How old are these things???
I think we need to note something here: The Numbers look like they're VERY old. It can't be said that Yuma opened Pandora's box when he summoned Astral anymore, because let's face it: Nasch summoned Abyss as Number 73 vs. Vector!!! I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but between this, Don Thousand holding onto 4 Numbers, the whole Legendary Numbers deal, and the fact that Number 7 was in a MUSEUM when Charlie stole it, there's no way that the Numbers were released when Yuma summoned Astral. I don't know how we would say that, though; it's been the accepted truth for too long. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk)  20:04, September 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't know the full story. Yeah, Nasch used it in the past, but perhaps the god itself had "Number 73" in its name. Don Thousand having four Numbers isn't explained, no. The Legendary Numbers as cards could have come into existence when Astral appeared, they simply never found owners. The museum bit is weird, but this is YGO - a new trading card appearing in a museum is no odder than a school dedicated to a card game. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 20:08, September 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand all that, but regarding Number 7 I noted that because why Number 7? Why not some other card? Number 7 even had an urban legend attributed to it. The Legendary Numbers in general I was skeptical of until 46, 73, and 94 happened quite blatantly and obviously. In general, the big problem I have with the Numbers is how quickly they were collected; 50 Numbers in how long? Don't you think that getting them in the hands of 3 factions happened way too quickly? I'm not saying we should change canon all of a sudden, I just think it's important to note all the timeline discrepencies. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk)  21:36, September 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Number 7 granted luck. The card itself was lucky enough to get into a museum, I guess. I don't really think the speed is a problem at all. People were actively tracking them down immediately. I was surprised the count was only 50 after the WDC, actually. Also, remember that the WDC itself was Faker's ploy to draw the Numbers to Heartland, that's why there were so many to get in the same area. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 00:48, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, how are we going to do this?
So, I was wondering? How are we going to list Number 39: Utopia Roots on this page? Any ideas?Over-HundredLegendaryChaosShiningNumbers (talk • contribs) 22:33, September 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * The Alternate Numbers section seems good to me, seems neutral enough and covers it accurately IMO (not that we know much). -- slave (command) 02:23, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Number 96 and 65
Alright so, any of you does have ANY PROOF that No 96 and 65 were obtained by Yuma/Astral???

Because last time they fought nothing was proved. No 96 tried to kill Yuma but Astral protected him with his body.

Then no96 went back to Don Thousand. Also by the time of that duel Astral did not had the power to absorb Number Cs and in the anime was never explained that he got it afterwards.

Also no65 is the last Legendary Numbers that is needed to confirm the location of the Numeron Code. Why people like Kaito and V have not studied those cards to find the Numeron Code yet? My answer is because Yuma never got it in the first place!

The most reasonable option is that No 96, 65, C65, C96, C92 and C69 (Number Cs are of minor importance to the plot anyway...) are in the possession of Don Thousand.

If you dont want to state that at least write "Unknown" to current owner because none of you has the proof that Yuma got those Numbers. If you have any proof show it to me.

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 17:23, September 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know what actually happened to Number 65, but I can at least say this much:


 * Number 96 did not go to Don thousand after its defeat. Don Thousand reclaimed its strength, which was rightfully his. I don't know exactly where he went, but as Number 96 itself used that spear attack to fuse to and attempt a takeover of Astral, and that Number 96 absorbed every single card he owned into himself, it can be presumed that with his total defeat and destruction in his last struggle with Astral, it can be assumed that the defeat left the 2 Numbers to him. And since every single Number card obtained thus far (barring the ones in Kaito and Shark's hands) definitely went to Yuma, it can be assumed that they reverted to card form and went into Yuma's Extra Deck.


 * But you're right: In my opinion, we can't actually be certain. I was in favor of changing their status to unknown when the episode actually happened, but I've since been shouted down and skeptically convinced. I remain skeptical though. If definite proof to the contrary is bared, then I think that they'll change the info accordingly.


 * But then, let me refute one thing: The reason Kaito and V didn't study the Legendary Numbers is because the necessary information is contained in them as Astral's memories. And how would studying them reveal those? I don't actually see how that could be done. Therefore, only Astral can reclaim the location of the Numeron Code from the Legendarhttp://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Number?action=edit&section=25#y Numbers. Although, the most recent episode worries me greatly: Numeron Fall illustrates the Numeron Code exploding. And something happened regarding whenDon thousand and Astral were fighting over it. Possibly on Earth. This suggests strongly that something happened to the Numeron Code. Aeron Solo wuz here  (If you wanna talk)  19:27, September 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned it is complete speculation on both sides; I see no proof that either Vector/Don, or Yuma/Astral received 65 or 96, let alone the number Cs... there are issues with yuma/astral being able to take the number cs,, but don siad he was taking his power back, not a number... power=bit of his soul =/ number? :s all speculation... can't we just leave there current ownership as Unknown? -- slave (command) 21:58, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

Im all for leaving Unknown. I mean: we dont accept that No94 belongs to Merag/Rio even if the monster itself is a princess and Rio is the only female Barian out there. If we need somme proof over that fact I think we need a proof even here.

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 22:02, September 16, 2013 (UTC) Prove me that Yuma has No 96 and 65 if you can, otherwise let's leave Unknown.

New manga numbers
http://blog.livedoor.jp/maxut/archives/32215142.html

I dont understand Japanese so I dont know if they are Kite's but the image at the top of the page gives that implacation in my opinion maybe wrong though.

So I thought I'd put this here for someone to check over before adding them as Kites to avoid false info being added.

Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 15:08, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Count of Numbers
As this shows up every now and again:

There are NOT 90 confirmed Numbers, if you look at the confirmed numbers from the separate cannons (D Team is irrelevant here as it hasn't introduced anything new):

(Additionally, this count is only referring to the "Original Numbers")

Anime and Manga: 3 (17, 20, 39)

Anime but not Manga: 38 Numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 40, 44, 46, 53, 54, 56, 61, 64, 65, 66, 69, 73, 83, 88, 92, 94 and 96) & 24 unknown Numbers

Manga but not Anime: 14 Numbers (13, 14, 21, 31, 42, 47, 48, 50, 52, 63, 70, 72, 82 and 91) & 7 unknown Numbers

Card Game Only: 5 Numbers (49, 57, 74, 85 and 87)

From this we know that there have only been (4+36=) 40 numbers in the anime with their name shown in full, as well as (4+14=) 18 numbers in the manga.

Because the 24 unknown Numbers we know nothing about, they could overlap with the 14 Numbers that have only appeared in the manga (as the anime and manga are two separate stories entirely), thus 24 unknown Numbers get cut down to 10; but these could also overlap with the 5 Numbers that have only appeared in the TCG/OCG which further brings the count down to (10-5=) 5 other different Numbers entirely. This shows that there are of the 64 different Numbers mentioned in the anime, of which '5 of them must be different to other Numbers we have seen anywhere.

As for the manga, the shown Numbers and the unknown Numbers (and therefore total Numbers), they remain at (18+7=) 25 Numbers, all of which but (25-24=) 1 having potentially already been seen.

Now while I can NOT say that those numbers DO overlap, it is a possibility (therefore that this is not proven to be false means we cannot state the 87 are proved either), but as it is a possibility; we can say that 5 of the twenty four numbers definitely don't overlap, where as that the other 16 do not overlap is also speculation; which is why I say 5; not because it can not be more; but because only 8 have been confirmed not to overlap as we are doing a combined count of both continuities. The same applies for only 1 of the Numbers in the manga not overlapping.

Finally adding the entirely shown Numbers from the different categories together; 4  (Anime and Manga) +36   (Anime but not Manga) +14   (Manga but not Anime) + 5   (Card Game Only) =59   (Total combined continuities confirmed)

Seriously pedantic it may be, but if you are counting the shown numbers + 24 + 7 one of these days you could end up with something g OVER 100, whilst simultaneously saying there are only 100 original numbers...

Additionally, whilst those numbers will change with new numbers being released in the anime/manga/TCG it the thrust of it is going to apply for a while yet... -- slave (command) 05:47, September 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * You do relised atleast 2 of the manga unknowns have been revealed right?

Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 08:37, September 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * sigh* Yes I copied that over from my user page where I wrote that up a while ago so as i said; some of the Numbers won't line up. but the point is we can't count all the individual numbers we know + X unknown numbers from the manga + Y unknown numbers from the anime. -.- -- slave (command) 08:46, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

Sealed form + original owner
So, I noticed these data are being discussed in edit wars, so instead, let's discuss 'em here first. To start with, my opinion:
 * Utopia and Revise Dragon are shown to have sealed forms, but in the manga, those were not shown. I think all Numbers whose sealed form was not shown should have "unknown" instead of "none", since nobody can tell for sure that a Number doesn't have a sealed form. It seems clear for me that all have, but some don't have theirs shown.
 * Original owner: I recently added Yagumo as 14's and 21's original owner 'cause it was explicitly shown and stated in the manga. I think we should just add "none" in "previous owner(s)" if the Number is clearly original from that character (e.g., No 70 and 82). Any thoughts? LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 15:55, September 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the original owners, but your as for your opinion on Sealed Forms, does that pertain to the anime as well? --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 16:14, September 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thats the question that led me to list them as none as if we were to go with 'not shown = unknown' we would have to list the like of 33, 53 etc. as 'Unknown' when we know full well that they don't have them.


 * Also I'm sure that I've seen it somewhere that said that the manga numbers don't have sealed form but I can't remember where. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 16:39, September 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * @Rocket.knight.777 yes, my opinion regards the anime ones as well. For example, Heart eartH Dragon's summoning sequence wasn't shown, it was just shown already there on the field, we may just have not seen its sealed form.
 * @Photonkrios99 What about the Utopia/Revise Dragon examples, then? The manga is stupidly lazy, it's not a surprise that they don't bother making fancy things like sealed forms, they don't even bother writing card lores on the cards. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 17:30, September 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't forget, Heart-eartH Dragon was summoned twice, and both times it had no sealed form (I speak of its frst appearance and again in the final battle against Black Mist). Similarly, Numbers 11 and 69 had no sealed form when they were summoned but appeared almost similarly to how the CXyz were summoned. And like Photonkrios said, what about 33? It had no sealed form. It descended from the heavens three times (tag duel with IV against Kite and Yuma, v. Yuma, and with Yuma v. the Fearsome Four's Cicada guy. All of them had no sealed form of any kind. But that doesn't mean the Manga Number do not have a sealed form, it is yet possible that they may appear in the anime. I say once the anime is offically over and done with (as in Zexal is finally put to bed) we can then call it that they have no sealed forms.--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 20:04, September 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * First, on the original owner thing, Kyoji has the ability to modify Numbers. Just read his page where it says "Abilities". Second, we can't say for sure they don't have sealed forms. We just didn't see them because they didn't show them. I don't see why there is such debate on this just because one guy doesn't agree. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 21:07, September 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * What debate? We're just explaining things to the guy on how the Manga Numbers' sealed forms are not known, but the anime ones who have not shown a Sealed form don't have one. Like 33, 11, 69, 53, and 92.--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 22:28, September 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly, but I figured he already knew that. Just a note, Number 53 did create a tornado which became his body when he was summoned, but I guess that can't really be considered a sealed form. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 22:46, September 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really.--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 23:30, September 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I was the one who added the whole "abilities" section of Yagumo's article. He doesn't "modify Numbers"; he takes blank Numbers and mold them, make them take form and become actual Numbers. English's not my native language so I may have worded it bad, but it's basically this. And regarding the sealed forms, my opinion is quite the same as NMBRHNTR64's. We can't say that they don't have sealed forms 'cause they were not shown. If 80% of the Numbers are shown with sealed forms, I don't see why a few random Numbers wouldn't have them. They may actually not have them, but saying for sure that they don't is speculation. It's simple guys, leaving "none" implies unfounded information (hence, speculation), while leaving "unknown" implies that we don't know if it has or not a sealed form since it was not shown. There's no reason to make things complicated. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 02:23, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Good, it looks like that is settled then. As for the "Abilities" section, the way it was worded was a little misleading (no offense). I haven't read the chapter yet, so I just go off the wiki till I can. Although, it does make more sense that he can mold his own Numbers instead of someone else's (imagine what he would do with Number 39!). Like everyone else, I just want accurate information on this wiki. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 02:36, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm not offended. I know my English skills still need improving. I'll try to re-write that section then. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 02:51, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not settled. In the anime, if they had a sealed form, they'd have shown it. 33 is a frickin city. How do you seal that? As for the others, if they had one, they'd have shown it. They didn't because they don't. End of discussion.--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 03:34, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Uhh… I thought we were discussing sealed forms in the manga. I am well aware that there are a few Numbers without a sealed form. Obviously, it should say "None" where an image of their sealed form would be. My argument is that should not be the case for Numbers in the manga, as the manga does not show sealed forms, so we do not know for sure that they do not have them. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 04:31, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no implication that you were refering to the manga Number only and so I assmued you were lumping the anime Numbers in there as well.--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 06:44, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not "end of discussion" 'cause you said so. Did you read my last input? What you're doing is speculation. We don't want speculation, we don't add speculation, we undo speculation edits. Seriously, what's so hard about just adding "unknown" instead of "none"? I already said, the sealed form was not shown, hence, we don't know it = unknown. This "sealed form" thing is not even an official thing to start with, it's just some random thing we add for some reason. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 14:50, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about just the manga Numbers, the anime Numbers, or both?--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 15:56, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Mainly, the manga Numbers and that even though we don't see them, that does not mean that they do not exist. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 15:59, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think we need to back up here, because it seems we're going around in circles. Let's see if we agree here. Sealed Form for manga Numbers = unknown, Sealed Form for anime Numbers = if not shown, there is none. Agreed?--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 16:06, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about both anime and manga. They have different stories but it's the same universe, same characters and same Numbers. I think we should add "unknown" for both cases. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 16:30, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, man. They would have shown them if the anime Numbers had a sealed form (which they did in many cases), but there are those without a sealed form. The only case you have could be for 56, which could easily have a sealed form; but there are those that don't. 33 is a huge, floating city. How do you seal that? 53, the animation made it look like it was made from trash, and 92 is its real form (so is a sense 53 is 92's sealed form). 69 descended for above like a god and had a similar summoning animation to 11 and the CXyz. 88...ok, maybe there the animators probably got lazy and didn't want to deal with sealing the monster and its throne, but still the fact remains: Not every Number has a sealed form. The manga Numbers may, but for anime, they would have shown it if the Number had it.--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 16:51, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, when it comes to anime, they would have shown them if they had them. And when it comes to the ZEXAL anime and manga, they are considered to have occurred in alternate timelines, as the stories are completely different and feature many different characters. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 17:33, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point Rocket Knight, but what I'm trying to say is that you can't say it for sure, it would be speculation, hence, we should say "unknown", which does explain that we have no information regarding the Number's sealed form while not implying anything that we don't know for sure. Simple like that. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 21:39, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, what's simple is what me and NMBRHNTR64 have been saying. Putting "unknown" just completes things. 33 and 69 have appeared three times, and 92 and 56 have appeared twice. And everytime they did not have a sealed form. If they were meant to have sealed forms, they would have been shown by now. That's all there is too it. The Manga Numbers could be unknown, because we don't know if they'll appear in the anime. Once that or the end of anime occurs, we can change the unknown to none; but for the anime, what you see is what you get. We don't see sealed forms, so they don't have one. Simple as that.--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 00:46, September 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I still believe that what you are doing is speculating, but if I couldn't convince you up to now, I give up. As I said before, this "sealed form" thing is not even a thing. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 22:06, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Fake Numbers
Should we put Number 1 to 4 in Alternate Numbers section? They are said by Vector to be fake onesThiviscar (talk • contribs) 18:06, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Vector clearly stated that those are counterfeits created by him, so they should be just like Black Illumiknight. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 21:41, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

Or we could make a page know as Barian Number. An archtype page that show all the Number card that orginated from Barian World. The Over-Hundred Number can be included as well.--im gay (talk • contribs) 21:44, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion we don't need to create a new page for every slightly new stuff that appears. A new section in the Numbers article is enough. In my opinion only the CNo are worthy having a separate article 'cause they're an archetype, the rest would all be just fine as new sections in this article. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 22:09, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

Just curious here, do we want to consider Number 66 as being a "fake" Number as well (I use quote because I think they are real Numbers, but not from Astral, rather from Don Thousand)? I mean, yes it did activate the Different Dimension Airship; but the question remains, how the frick did Vector get his hands on it? Granted he free DT until after he lost to Yuma, but how do you explain it?--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 03:05, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

i dont think we should, as Astral did receive memories from the card when he acquired it (memories on the airship, it's purpose, and how to operated it), and as for how he got them, they were just acquired off screen, from someone/something else, atleast that what i think.F8lfire (talk • contribs) 03:16, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Don Thousand's Number
Does anyone notice the Number cards Don Thousand gave to Vector, who then gave to Mr. Heartland may not be Original/Astral Number but Barian Number Cards. If so we could make another archetype support for the Number archetype. I've notice that Astral's Numbers are usually a blank white color, while Don's were color red. Since when are Astral 's Original Numbers redd and white. This Number cards are of Bairan origin, just the like the Over-Hundred Number and some of the Number C formed by Rank-Up-Magic Barian's Force.


 * The problem is that Vector said he gave out fakes but we can't say for certain that;
 * A. The ones that DT gave Vector are also fake.
 * B. Wheather or not these were artifiacally created with a form, or they are carbon copies of the actual cards.
 * So I'm not 100% sure what to do with the Number table in this regard, but I do feel that a descison should be made quickly. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 22:59, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Would it be alright to move numebrs 1-4 to the alternate numebrs section (numebrs without C or S etc.) which covers Rank-Down as well as fake numbers? I mean episode 122 Vector: 貴様らが今まで バリアンの刺客から奪ったナンバーズは すべて　ニセモノよ. (The Numbers you idiots took from my Barian assassins are all a buncha fakes!) ... Doesn't that cover why numbers 1-4 are fakes, and if so can we remove them form the main table of Original Numbers, i mena Number 10 Black Iluminight isn't ther nor is Utopia Roots (although thats differant case... sort of) ... -- slave (command) 23:41, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

They should be moved alright as there just a scheme Vector planned to hurt Kite and the others. そいつは　一度入れられ 根を張ると　ひっこ抜かれるとき バリアンズフィールドの負荷エネルギーが 数倍発生する. (By letting them take root in your Decks, the energy load of the Barian's Field is buncha times greater when they come out!). DracoX (talk • contribs) 01:16, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

How do you know about that proof DracoX? Please tell.--im gay (talk • contribs) 01:33, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

1's Sealed Form
Um, I know it might be splitting hairs, but at 13:20 in the episode, would that count as Number 1's sealed form?--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 02:42, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

I take it no one else agrees?--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 15:15, September 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I gotta watch the episode again, then I get back to you on that. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 15:18, September 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well?--Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 23:03, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Merging Numbers
Hey this amy seem like a strange idea but how abot merge all the Numbers pages together like Xyz Evolution? This seems like a good idea for me as the previous week has been all about merging pages. But I still want all the prevous information from the other Numbers pages be add to this one. Hope you all are ready to dicuss this.--im gay (talk • contribs) 14:21, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Number 80
Is it possible that 80 could be a Don Thousand/Fake Number that Alito was/will be given in this week's episode? --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 16:45, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is possible... and if i am correct then yes that does mean it is listed in the wrong spot :/ Although we run into the same problem as last time of where to put one that we don't actually know if it fits the criteria.... Hopefully someone can say it definitely is or is not a Fake Number? :s -- slave (command•works) 16:52, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * We may not know until as early as Sunday, or as late as Yuma and Alito's duel; but I don't mind waiting. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 16:56, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can say its fake as of yet due to the fact we know that the 7BE can use the original Numbers and have obtained them mysteriously in the past (Vector and 66). I would suggest doing what we did with 1-4 and leaving it hear until proven otherwise. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 16:58, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * You make a good point, Photon; but it's acquisition may not be as mysterious as you think. Alito could have gotten 80 during the point in the next episode where (I'm guessing) DT's control of Gilag and Alito is deepened/strengthened. 66 may be hard to explain, but I'm not convinced 80 is. And I'm not saying we move it now, but that we at least prepare yourselves to do so. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 17:03, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if it turns out to be a fake, its fake and it gets moved, nothing any one can do about it but right now we have the edivence saying tis a number card, but we don't have the proof that is fake. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 17:06, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * never the less that would still be an assumption to say it is - either way, personally i don't particularly like leaving it in the main table because we don't know... Does it hurt to have a small 'Miscellaneous section just with a table and above "There is insufficient information on these Numbers to state whether they are Original Numbers or Fake Numbers" ~ or some such... Oh well -- slave (command•works) 17:09, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * We can't have a Misc. section because it could very well be a temporary section. Unless proven otherwise, we should assume all Numbers are original for now. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 17:22, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * The evidence we have says that 80 is an orignal and is listed in the right place. We know its a number, but aside from people panicing over 1-4 we have no proof that its fake. But as I said we have proof of it existing, therefore adding it on the table is represnetaion of current given fact and not speculation. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 17:24, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I will accept it hwo it s: but it is an assumption never the less and If you have read what is in-front of you and still don't see that; then I don't think I have any chance of reasoning with you on that front; although it matters not as everyone chooses to put it in the main table regardless as I say I now accept... -- slave (command•works) 17:26, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as the characters assumed Numbers 1-4 were Original Number, so did the audience until it was proven, otherwise. The same goes here. As far as we do know, it is a real Number. I only asked and started this to avoid edit warring. But that apparently didn't work so well. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 17:29, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

As a point of reference for the future will we be putting all numbers with the notice UlitmateKuriboh has put on 80 until they are confirmed real or fake, e.g. released/dialog confirmed. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 17:31, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * So…the same with 62 then? NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 17:34, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Coolios that simplifies things -- slave (command•works) 17:35, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we can say with confidence that that's legit given its the cover card for Primal Origin, that or Konami are going to troll us big time with it. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 17:36, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * But that would be assuming…now wouldn't it? NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 17:46, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * This is why I asked as what criteria can we use to say confirmed not fake and fake, aside from in show dialog. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 17:49, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it is not confirmed to be original, nor fake. As such, it should also have the notice until proven otherwise. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 17:53, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well what ever happens we can agree that 1-4 are going to make editing this page with anime content difficult as hell.

On a side note of 80's listing 2 Q's just occoured to me:
 * 1. Should we put the count back down to 56 if the notice is essentially saying it unconfirmed? and
 * 2. From its image would 'collar' be a better description for the numebr location? Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 17:55, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks a lot, Don Thousand…(waves fist angrily in the air) NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 17:57, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that lapel is more accurate,but readers are more likely to understand collar, but the 1-4 we have seen are definitely fake so i don't see issue there, although I suggest that the notice I have edited back in that an admin put there, should stay - it does zero harm and provides relevant information. Give me a decent reason why it shouldn't be there if you can please? :) and yeah I think 56 is better than 57 as we don't know yet. -- slave (command•works) 06:40, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

So do we have to write the stuff about not knowing if it's Fake or not to all future Numbers revealed in the anime? If so I suggest to start right now with Number 62.

Oh and we do not forget about Numbers 49, 57 and the rest released in Numbers Hunters. How would you know those are not Fake Numbers? They havent appeared in the anime.

My suggestion is to put every new Under100 Number in the original section UNTIL proven otherwise by the anime. That string is useless.

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 14:50, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Or we could just make a new section with those 5 Numbers + 62 + 80? because if we don't have some form of notice and on the off chance one of them turns out to be fake; we will be backtracking... backtracking displays that we make assumptions OR a new unprecedented thing - such as when Fake Numbers as a concept where first introduced in the anime -- slave (command•works) 19:12, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Because if no80 is speculated to be Fake, then I also speculate that 62 is Fake. I mean: how can we know for sure that 62 is an original Number? Just because a good guy owns it? If we go by that logic than we should modify a lot of other things (see IV's Numbers that should be with Nasch just because he defeated him). So either eliminate that string to no80 or add that to every unknown Number in the list ( 62, 49,57 ecc) OR we go by your suggestion.

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 19:28, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 19:16, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * And what would that solve. The NUMH numbers haven't appeared in the anime and guess what neither have any of the manga numbers (bar 17/39 and a cameo from 22). Should we list them as fake because they haven't been seen in the anime. The reason that 80 is marked with the tag is to settle to mini-edit war that was whether it was fake or not giving that is was the most simple solution. And speculating that 62 is fake is flawed logic as any number released so far that ISNOT fake has been released the only numbers that haven't been released at the most appropriate time atm are 1-4 which are confirmed fake by Vector, how fake we don't know, but the fact remains that saying that 62 is fake is far more speculatory. And is there any need to bring 15/40/88 into the fold you suggested it already and it has been established why they are unknown. Should you want to have them labeled as Nasch's its simple give proof, direct dialoge or a screen of them in his posetion, until either of those are provided that stays.


 * As of this time there is no need to put the tag on to ANY OTHER NUMBER, as they are in no way disputed by any one. However I would like to suggest that it be put in a notes section so that the table can appear a little neater. It may just be me but it appears a little 'scruffy' (for lack of a better phrase with the notice put in it).Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 19:27, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Read all of your response. Still dont know why No80 is so special to deserve that string. I mean, just because someone disputed 80 could be fake? Then I dispute 62 too. Cant I?

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 19:31, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, "OR a new unprecedented thing - such as when Fake Numbers as a concept where first introduced in the anime" - the anime and manga are two seperate continuities, as such while they are often similar there is not a single Number in the manga which has been revealed to be fake; the only reason to assume that there ever will be is because the anime and manga dance, but yes you do definetly have a point there, so yeah just note between the table as a whole? -- slave (command•works) 19:33, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Lets look at the objective facts of whats happening with 62 and 80;
 * 1. 80 is in the hands of a varian that is controled by a source that is know to give out fake numbers, 62 has been mentioned as of yet by one preview and a product announcement therefore saying '62 is fake' is pushing the bout out where as putting a disclaimer on 80 to ensure that people are fully aware of it is better representing the facts as we see them.
 * 2. @Sardeth42 when i say a comment in a note section I'm speack of a general comment at the bottom of the page (below references) and something like an asterisk (*) next to the name of any and all numbers that have a valid reason for being disputed until confirmation is given (in this case 80 but not 62) Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 19:39, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * All of this is S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N. Lets see at the fact about no15,40 and 88. Their owner was defeated by a Barian whose only mission is to take all the original Numbers to win a war. Then we should modify that by your logic. Or rather, your speculation XD

What is it here? Speculation does not work in any case? Just when something is debated by one guy? Even Number 66 was held by a Barian Emperor and yet it was original. I DEBATE this fact.

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 19:59, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * ..Or we list all Numbers as real and until proven to be fake and say so in the article - whether near the table or in a Notes section... (point 2 seems easiest at this point imo) Oh well... Oh and @Yano88 are you using the mono skin?-- slave (command•works) 20:02, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * ^^ This. (I dont know what a mono skin is :-P )

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 20:05, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahh well... is this agreeable in some capacity to you Photonkrios99? and Yano88 its an option for the layout under Special:Preferences, I was just wondering because your formatting is ..unusual :p :) I don't use it myself -- slave (command•works) 20:08, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * @Yano - 'source that is know to give out fake numbers' This is my counter argueement that I am actually repeating, we dont know how Vector got 66, but it was definatly not from DT and Its clearly original as astral got memories from it. The disclaimer is there with the sole purpose of giving the reader of the page the full facts regading it. In this case saying that 80 could end up going either way. It isn't speculating anything rather giving full clarity for the reader.


 * And again 15/40/88 has been explained to you on mutiple occasions if you wish to keep argueeing it put it the the section you created for it other wise link proof or drop it. The unknown is there to give reader clarity that we don't currently know where they are. deal with it.


 * 62 shouldn't have disclaimer because as far as the previews suggest it is not at all in any way linked to DT, which is the implacation with 80. there is nothing to suggest that it is fake aside from you going, 'well if 80 is listed as so should this'.


 * @Sardeth - If we can get UK to Ok the notes section or it then I'd say that seems like an all appeasing settlement. I say get his OK first as he's an admin and I feel its better not to step on their toes with this sort of thing. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 20:13, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I am really regretting opening this section now. I was just asking the harmless opinions of others. I did not intend on this huge edit war. Can't we all just get along? --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 20:16, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * We're working on it XD :/ I think? :s I think we are all more or less on the same page now, I'm happy just to wait for Kuriboh now myself, but that's just me, and sorry for it getting so heated - to all of you :/ :( -- slave (command•works) 20:21, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

"62 shouldn't have disclaimer because as far as the previews suggest it is not at all in any way linked to DT, which is the implacation with 80. there is nothing to suggest that it is fake" ---> Isnt this speculation? I mean you ARE speculating that 62 is not a Fake Number? How can you know how things will evolve until the episode where 62 will make his debut? By the preview of future episode we should now create pages for Number C9 and C33 as III and V will Rank-Up every Numbers that they possess if we stick by the preview. And yet we do not do that... If this is not speculation I dont know what is... Im not arguing or trying to pick up a fight, I just want to understand why his speculations are more important the my own? :-D

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 20:29, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * The preview says 'their Numbers one-after-another', they have a total of 4 Numbers that they will, or could potentially control, (6/9/33/107) the one after another could mean that it picks right up from where 127 left of with the rank up of 6 and then stright to 9. With the CNo.'s we dont create a page till we know 100% as it could open the flood gates for every number known most of which are likely not to get one. Saying 62 isn't fake isn't speculation as evidence can be provided to say its real. Where as 80 has very small amounts of evidence to say it COULD be fake, hense the disclaimer. And as there is none suggesting the same for 62, aside from literally you saying that it could be nothing tanglable in regards to its legitamcy has presented itself. This is end of discussion and agreement has been made above that will literallt appease everyone in this situation, we are just waiting for admin approval as it was an admin who set up the disclaimer in the first place. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 20:49, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

So far, the only "Fake Numbers" shown have been given out by Vector and/or Don Thousand. Other Barians have not given out Fake Numbers. At this time, we don't know Alco's affiliation is, other than being a Barian who is an observer (hinting at a neutrality of sorts). Thus, there is no convincing reason to believe he would give out a Fake Number, in the form of "Number 62". As for "Number 80", it is unknown how Alito gets that "Number". However, as shown in previews, he is shown being influenced by the power of Don Thousand. It seems likely that Don Thousand and/or Vector gives him that Number. And since that duo likes to give out Fake Numbers, it is a good idea to put a disclaimer for it. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 22:17, October 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahh, but Alco doesn't appear to give out a Number, he gives The Closed Eight. Just saiyan.NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 01:53, October 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. But the point still stands; we don't know how Kaito obtains his Number, but we have a leading assumption that Alito obtains his Number from Don Thousand. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 02:00, October 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I totally see your point. For the record though, we technically don't know its Kaito's Number. It could be Misael's, who as you know, is a Barian (although the "Photon" part is kind of a giveaway, if it was just "Prime" it could be anyones). But, you are right. If we have reason to believe it could a Fake Number, then we can give it a disclaimer. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 02:06, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

@Yano88: It was never shown that Barian Emperors can create "Fake Numbers": only that Don Thousand has the power to create "Fake Numbers". Vector held "Number 66: Master Key Beetle" before DT was unsealed. Your arguement is invalid.Over-HundredLegendaryChaosShiningNumbers (talk • contribs) 22:46, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I never said Number 66 is fake. I just said that just like you guys "assume" Number 80 is fake (speculation) then Number 62 too could be fake and deserves a string. But of course you wont put it because that Number belongs to Kaito, a good guy, therefore it MUST be real. (another assumption/speculation). So my point is to put strings also to No 15,40,88. We leave unknown but we should write "very likely in the possession of Nasch since he defeated IV". (This is an assumption/speculation no different from the others above). In conclusion my point is this: we have not seen Nasch phisically taking the Numbers from IV AND we did not see yet Don Thousand phisically giving a Number to Alito. (Even if we saw that it wouldn't be sure if it is fake or not). So my deal is to let Number 80 within the originals until proven otherwise. Any string is useless. Yano88 (talk • contribs) 08:22, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 07:51, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Saying that the Puppets are unknown is fact, that has been explained to you bellow so can you please drop it. 62 doesn't need the disclaimer as we have no clue what so ever where it comes from. Meaning their is no evidence that it could be fake. Depending on how we interpret the previews we could say that its from miraculous conception like they were pre-WDC. 80 is suspect because of Alito's current connection with DT. And we are not saying that it is fake we are saying that it COULD BE hens why we have a disclaimer saying unknown. And if you read the table it doesn't say 62 belongs to Kite. What is happening at the moment is that we are listing on the table using what evidence we have to make any assertion. We have evidence that could lead us to suspect that 80 could be fake, we have none to suggest 62. On this basis it is not speculation to give one the disclaimer and not the other because we are going with what evidence we have. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 08:49, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

And I say that before this Number 80 thing, we never interpreted previews from next episodes. Also Alito and Gilag are under the influence of Don Thousand because he only used his powers to awaken them. But as for now it has not been proven that a Fake Number changes the personality of his users (see Mr Heartland). Anyway cool, im done with this discussion. To me it stays firmly an assumption/speculation not needed. But leave it there I dont mind it.

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 09:59, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

At the cost of reawakening this...it should be pointed out that Alito has been off the grid for at least 18 episodes. It's perfectly possible for him to have found a Number Holder and taken the Number. Sanokal K-T (talk • contribs) 04:35, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see... However we know that from now on, every new Number revealed via scans of magazine etc. will be treated as a possible Fake Number. (Of course if it is called Utopia or Galaxy-Eyes that string wont matter. Because here we are AGAINST speculations lol ).

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 06:57, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

@Yano - That wasn't the point we were making with 62 and you damn we'll know it. @Sanokal - That would still be speculation. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 08:08, November 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * You guys are taking the "no speculation" policy way too far. Just list them as real until proven otherwise. My god. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 16:34, November 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really. We are discussing how far it should go. We have reason to believe 80 is fake because Alito has it, and he is under possession of DT right now. However, we have no reason at all to believe 62 is fake, not because it is a Galaxy-Eyes, but because we don't know who has/will have it. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 16:41, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

Just like I have reasons to believe that No 15,40 and 88 are with Nasch now. Let's leave Unkown to them but we put a string *These Numbers might be with Nasch XD. But I dont see anyone doing that...

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 16:58, November 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * This is about Number 80 and its possibility being fake. Stick to the topic at hand. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 17:34, November 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * a good way to avoid my speculations XD But like I said in the past, enough. I have a life and quite frankly I dont care much about a string or 2. I just wanted to make my point: your speculations are equals to mine but you put the string to no 80 (speculated to be fake) and not to mine (speculation about IV's numbers. Thats'it. Bye

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 17:41, November 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to further discuss the GP Numbers how about go to the topic that you created to discuss it after this one was made, that is located right beneath this one. Any way admin has spoken now real until otherwise stated, lets just leave it at that. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 22:01, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

Gimmick Puppet Numbers
I think it's safe to say that No 15,40 and 88 are with Shark/Nasch now.

At the end of the duel they let us see clearly that IV's duel disk was left with Shark.

Also the Seven Emperors must collect them so it is impossible that Shark left them on the ground.

Let's vote everyone for this chance because, even if its true that nothing was proven, this is the only possible logic.

The anime is all about collecting the Numbers XD

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 16:50, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * As it stands it is unknown where they are and saying that they are in the posession of Nasch would be speculation as I dont recall it being explicitly said that they were taken but I remember Dumon making a comment on who had numbers left on earth. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 16:53, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * But do you have definitive proof? It's implied they're with him, but unless you can definitively prove it, nothing is changed. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 16:54, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

In the last episode there were several scenes that showed us Shark alone with IV's duel disk. Why Konami showed us that the duel disk was left there while IV's body disappeared?

Of course they cannot show each time a character taking the Numbers with their hands but to me this is enough of a proof. (Showing that IV's duel disk was left with Shark.)

The main objective of the Seven Bariar Emperors is to collect Numbers in order to win the war against the Astral World. I cannot think of Shark leaving 3 powerful Numbers to the ground.

At least you guys should show me some proof of why he did not took them XD

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 16:59, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is "you're assuming." In the 3rd season of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, people that lost a Duel were sent to a different dimension, leaving their Duel Disks behind. There was no reason for them to be left behind, but sure enough they were. You are likely right, but this is a Wiki, and we don't make edits based on "assumptions." --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 17:03, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Any proof we could show you is as much speculation as what you're saying happened, Yano. Proof comes in the form of visually seeing Nasch with 15, 40, and 88, and their Chaos forms. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 17:06, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I think it's likely that Shark did take those Numbers, there is not proof of that, and they aren't saying he wouldn't of taken them as such; they are saying we don't have proof that he did take them; it's possible he didn't take them because of any arbitrary reason despite how illogical or logical that may or may not be; they don't need proof that he didn't take them -- slave (command•works) 17:09, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well what Kuriboh said >.> and completely aside: are that many [enter]s really necessary? :) -- slave (command•works) 17:09, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there is no absolute proof he took them, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. He obviously feels guilty for "sending him to hell" of wherever he ended up. Taking his Numbers would just be even worse. There you go, Yano. A reason for not taking them. :) NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 17:14, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Then why would he continue to fight? His main objective that is to collect the Numbers cannot be achieved so why just not give up the interdimensional war? XD

Of course my comment of showing proof of Shark not takin the Numbers was ironic. :-D Mainly because I cannot believe he did not took them. This is assumption based on the logic of the anime. It would be highly illogical for Shark not collecting Numbers XD

Anyway Im cool. If u want to leave that like that ok...

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 17:20, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I ahve taken the liberty of fixing your posts, as you removed my last one and it is annoying having formatting ruined so much good day -- slave (command•works) 17:24, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

Whilst on the topic of assumptions, can someone else please look at the section above on Number 80 please :) thanks -- slave (command•works) 17:18, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

I did not removed anything :-D

Anyway I am seeing episode 122 subbed right now and MR Heartland says that now Earth is like trapped in a giant Barian's Sphere Field. So even the fact that a Barian cannot take a Numbers directly on Earth has been reverted. Just saying...

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 17:28, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * See that post above your last one the one which I am now making this colour mind you I don't really care; the post was off-topic; just the principle :p regardless I'm going to go now; I have nothing further to contribute to help this article in any way >.> -- slave (command•works) 17:34, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * But you still have no proof he took them. Burden of Proof falls on the accuser it isn't out job to turn to you and say he hasn't you need to prove he has, and seeing that their is no dialog or screens that can be provided as such... Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 17:29, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think he was making a statement…NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 17:31, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

Just to talk a little: to me its pointless to leave unknown even to no 6, 33 and 9. In the anime there is an interdimensional war going on and the main objective of this war is to collect all the Numbers. Also, Earth now is trapped in a giant Sphere Field so Barian Emperors can use their real appearance AND THEY CAN ABSORB NUMBERS. I suggest to give no15, 40 and 88 to Nasch while 6,33 and 9 to Mizael. This is the only logical way around. What does it means Unknown? That they left Numbers (that can be used against them) on the ground just like that. No way. If it is going to be proved otherwise then we will correct but this is it.

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 22:24, November 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have any proof? Do you have any absolutely undeniable proof that they took the Numbers? Did you see them take the Numbers? Do you see the Numbers in their hands? If you do not, THEN IT IS SPECULATION. That is all there is to it. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 22:44, November 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you see Don Thousand giving no 80 to Alito? I dont think so and yet we have that (in)famous string XD

Do you have any proof that says 100% sure that no62 is NOT a fake number? If so please show me.

Yano88 (talk • contribs) 22:47, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, that is what the disclaimer is for. And we have no reason to put the disclaimer on 62, because there is no reason to believe that it might be fake. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 23:00, November 4, 2013 (UTC)