FANDOM



So we know that for things like Knight, where there are support cards that specifically asks for "ナイト" (Naito), we can go all out and list everything that has that word in its name a "Knight" card.
However, what about the 'archetypes' like Monarch, Warriors and King; where there are no support cards?
Things like Alien Warrior and Magnet Warrior Sigma Plus are already being added to Warriors; while the the only reason why the page was even made in the first place was because "Warriors are a series of primarily Warrior-Type monsters which are used by Yusei Fudo."; not because their name contains "ウォリアー" (Warrior).
If this continues, Musician King could soon be added to Monarch because its name contains "帝", and Big Eye could soon be added to King because its name contains "王".
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 13:41, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
There's a difference.--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 14:03, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Sub-types don't matter when the reason that page was even created was because they are linked through Yusei Fudo. Not their name. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 14:07, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Not that. Actually "Warriors" was created because of it's formula with Synchro Monster like "...Synchron" + "...(NT)" = "... Warrior". Warriors of Yusei was also used in the manga. About the difference some cards' archetype need two Jap text to see belong, others 1. Some you have to look their common effect(s) like in "Goblin", "Chaos", "King", "Monarch", etc series to be a member even if they have 'that' name in it.. Look at the "Roids" sho's signature cards but "Dark Jeroid" in it to related section; you can do the same with "Big Eye", "Musician King".--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 17:28, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
See the various conversations at this talk page. This is another reason I think we really need to implement the whole Family idea. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 16:37, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Isn't "Family" suppose to be "..." with its subtypes like "Cyber", "Cyber Dragons", etc.--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 17:28, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
The idea behind family was to recategorize archetypes that don't have support as families instead. An archetype is by default a family, but a family is not an archetype unless it has at least one support card. So "Elemental HERO" would be a family and an archetype. "Monarch" would just be family. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 18:05, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
To further complicate matters, I was advocating "groups", first in place of and later alongside "families". =D ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 18:12, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
What's stopping us? The discussion that led to the idea was inconclusive, as I recall, with no real reasons not to, but also not much apparent interest in actually following through, so I say just start employing the idea and see if anyone complains. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 17:58, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

This really isn't much different from the question of whether Random Monster X is related to Random Archetype Y simply because it appeared in the artwork of Random Unrelated Card Z alongside Random Monster Q From Random Archetype Y - if there are no support cards asking for a particular string in a card's name as a basis for an archetype, then common sense should rule the day when deciding whether a given card could in fact be considered a part of the archetype. If the "Warriors" archetype, for instance, is really meant to be an unsupported group of cards used by Yusei Fudo which all have the word "Warrior" in their name (or rather, one particular katakana rendering of the word in their Japanese name), then there is no defensible rationale for running around and listing every card with that katakana in its name as being part of the archetype. On the other hand, we have the "Cat" archetype, which does have support cards that ask for a particular string in the card's name, so running around adding every card with said string to that archetype is much more defensible. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 17:58, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

your a fast typer; how do you type that fast or does the bot type for you. "Photons" also don't have its support cards, but are listed. Once the archetype is created anything related to it can be added look at the "HERO" archetype. It's a major headache adding all "...HERO..." there, but people do it looks like they gave up on it; i usually add the ones that aren't very complicated and easy to handle like "Knights", "Warriors"' sub-types, etc. What are the Big Letter's you wrote mean?--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 18:16, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I'm just a fast typer. ;) The "HERO" archetype has support cards (not nearly as many as its subarchetypes, to be sure, but they're still there), as does the "Knight" archetype (one support card is still support), meaning that adding all and sundry to them is justified, as I said above (regardless of whether people are still working on doing so). "Photon" and "Warrior", on the other hand, don't have any such support and so shouldn't have every card with the necessary text in its name added to them - whether a given card fits the group's theme (e.g. for Warriors, the theme seems to be "mostly Warrior-Type monsters used by Yusei Fudo") should be the deciding factor for inclusion.
The "Big Letters" I wrote (which I'm assuming refer to "Random Monster X", etc.) just signify that you could plug in any random monsters and archetype and end up with a suitable example. For example, one major instance of this presented in the forum thread that discussed it was whether "Ojama Yellow" ("Random Card X") was related to the "Mokey Mokey" archetype ("Random Archetype Y") simply because it appeared in the artwork of "The League of Uniform Nomenclature" ("Random Unrelated Card Z") alongside "Mokey Mokey" ("Random Card Q From Random Archetype Y"). ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:01, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
But not all the "HERO" cards are in that archetype they're lots missing.--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 19:15, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. ;) ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:36, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
@Cheesedude: I should have seen that coming
For "Roids"; Dark Jeroid/etc should be in the archetype, not in related. Expressroid only cares about "Roid", not machine-type "Roid".
For "HERO"; Vision HERO Adoration (per WC11 lore as well as jp lore), asks for "HERO" cards. So anything with that word in the name can be grouped
"Photons" are like "Warriors", are held together only by a character, not their name.
There's going to be another 30 Monarchs and 120 Kings if this continues.....
On another note; I'm considering removing the part about Numbers being the largest archetype (at Numbers#Trivia) because, currently, Speed Spells is the largest 'archetype' when we list them all (148). But it should be a Card Type instead, not an archetype. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 01:38, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
Agree on the "Roids" thing; if an archetype's support cards just call for a particular string in card names (keeping in mind that this usually works according to Japanese rather than English names) for them to be eligible for support, then *all* cards with that string in their name are members of that archetype, regardless of whether they fit the archetype's theme or not (I touched on this above, but it never hurts to spell it out). The only times this isn't true are A) when card lores either state up-front or are errata'd to exclude such cards by name, B) if a ruling excluding such cards is made, or C) if the names of those cards are errata'd to no longer match the archetype.
If anyone wants to go through unsupported archetypes such as "Warriors", "Monarchs", "Kings", etc., and remove those cards that don't fit the theme, they've got my support. Such archetypes may, however, be a case for using the "archrelated" parameters, for cards that would technically meet the criteria set by support cards but that don't otherwise fit the theme (though please, don't run around doing this until it's been discussed and agreed on first)... Thoughts on this?
Does anyone seem opposed to promoting our treatment of "Speed Spell" to a game mechanic/card type? If not, it'd probably be better to just do so, rather than waiting around for further discussion that may well never materialize. What changes to {{CardTable2}} would this require (I'm thinking we wouldn't need any new parameters or parameter values, since all Speed Spells seem to have the words "Speed Spell" in their name - is this correct)?
Last, not that this really matters, but Numbers are only the largest archetype if you count how many there are supposed to be, rather than how many we've actually seen so far. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:29, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that is the archetype is currently at "Vehicroid", not "Roid".
I'd prefer not to do that until we somewhere else to put them. Can we agree on a name for what we currently have listed as archetypes that have no support. Family? Group? Series?
No one commented in the negative, only myself and Falzar (who created the topic) responded in positive. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 09:24, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
Then it should be split into 2 separate pages. Vehicroid Connection Zone asks for "Vehicroid", so this is like XX-Sabers and X-Sabers.
Yes, every Speed Spell has "Speed Spell" in its name.
There's one thing that I just noticed about it, cards like Acceleration Zone and Speed World say "Speed Spell" in " "s, which may imply an archetype. However, it says "Speed Spell" Cards with caps on C in Cards, just like the other Card Types. Whereas archetypes seem to all have lower case c for cards (e.g. "Crystal Beast" cards). -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 10:07, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix the "Roids" archetype; "Vehicroids" and "Roids" aren't the same. "Roids" aren't "Vehicroids" but that is "Roids".--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 12:08, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

The only two actual "Vehicroids" would be "Super Vehicroid - Stealth Union" and "Super Vehicroid Jumbo Drill". However, the "Roids" in the anime are called "Vehicroids" even if they don't have "Vehicroid" in their names, so that needs to be noted in the "Roids" article. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 18:29, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

The page Vehicroid uses {{ArchetypeNavbox}} (not something like {{ArchetypeNavbox|Roid}}), yet it manages to get Submarineroid, which uses |archetype1 = Roid; that means it includes redirects to the page. However, wasn't redirects ignored after the SMW got 'updated' a while ago, which is why we had to use "Monster||Monsters"? -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:08, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

It did ignore redirects, for a while at least, but more recently seems to have started following them again. We still want to avoid them, though, so we don't have to worry about that any more. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:25, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Naming

What should be call the "archetype that has no support but is no longer an archetype". Family was the first suggestion. I myself prefer "series". This fits in nicely with wording already employed on many archetype pages. If no one responds or or objects to the use of "series" I'm just going go to ahead and create the category and start its implementation in about a week or so. We also need to update CardTable2 to use "series" and "seriesrelated" parameters, right? Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 00:30, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Just to rehash, suggested names are "family", "group", and now "series". I don't have any strong preference, though I'm personally leaning towards "group" or "family" myself. At any rate, terminology isn't nearly as important as allowing for the distinction in the first place. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 02:59, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
We also already have Category:Families, for what it's worth. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:15, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
Any parciulare reason for preferring those? Also, to me, it is just as important. We don't need to be changing the name later and then be doing botruns to fix it. Which we will already have to do if we go with family (I'm kind of angry someone went and created the category, actually). This is exactly the reason I didn't just go ahead with "series" myself in the first place. I was afraid we'd have to change it later. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 04:15, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
None to speak of, honestly; I just like how they sound (that, and they've had more time to grow on me than "series" has). ;) I do have to ask, though, is there any hint as to what an official terminology might be, whether from card lores or otherwise? ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:14, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
For whatever reason, I simply hate how family sounds. Don't know why. I would greatly prefer "series", though "group" is also fine. I cannot think of any card lores that would mention something like that off the top of my head, no. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 15:22, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
It seems we both like "group", then; this actually also strikes me as the more "versatile" term, compared with "series". Wasn't (and anyone else reading this), do you have any particular opinion?
I wouldn't worry too much about the category being around since May in deciding what term to use; it's not like it's particularly hard to rename categories, it's just a bit annoying (even with a bot to move pages to the new category). ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:11, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
"Kasei" created ":Category:Families"; he/she created it on "16:26, May 9, 2011" .I think we should leave it as "Families" since it's there for a long time. Series doesn't sound bad either. I don't know the difference between "series" and "families"; all i know is families = relatives and series = ~"Sets". This may turn out to be like "Revise Dragon".--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 12:16, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
.....how did we miss that? It's been around here unused since May? Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 15:22, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you checked its history. We could call it "Family Series" if you like. Is "Knight", "Warriors", "LV Monsters", etc part of it too?--Wasn't (talkcontribs) 17:50, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Recap

So a recap of what seems to be the consensus: (note: when I say Family, I mean Family/Series/Group, whichever we decide on using):
1) If a lore asks for a certain type of card, ALL cards with that string in their Japanese name are members of that Archetype, regardless of whether they fit the theme or not. Including Spell and Trap cards if they also have that string in their name.
2) Since they don't have any cards which have a lore which asks for a certain type of card (AKA Support Cards); Monarch, Warriors, King and Generation Fish should be a Family; not an Archetype.
3) Vehicroid needs to be split into 2 separate Archetypes; Roid and Vehicroid.
4) Speed Spells are Card Types, much like Spell and Trap Cards; not an Archetype. Furthermore, Speed World (2) is not a card in the player's actual deck, but is part of a Game Mechanic/Gameplay.
Is that correct?
That being said;
Other/new things to consider and things yet to be agreed upon are:
5) Decide on using Family, Series or Group.
6) If a type is already categorized as an Archetype, it should be unnecessary to also categorize it as a Family.
7) Families should not use Infobox/Archetype and ArchetypeNavbox; instead, a new Infobox/Family and FamilyNavbox should be made.
8) Should Families need a 'FamilyRelated cards' section; and what should and should not be in it.
9) Remind us what belongs in the 'ArchetypeRelated' section.
My additional comments would be:
For 5, I'd prefer either Series or Group; the first thing that comes to most people minds with the word family is relatives and siblings, and not the other definition (intended definition) which is a group of objects united by a significant shared characteristic or genus.
For 8, since they are Families (use a theme; no support cards), cards like Big Eye should not be in the King Family since they don't fit the theme. Also, it shouldn't be part of the Related section either, since it just happened to have the word in the name since it's a commonly used term in names. Apart from having the same common term in their name, there is nothing else in common.
Things like Mobius Castle and Lightning Crash should be in FamilyRelated of Monarchs as they have multiple things in common, but do not totally fit the theme.
For 9, is it really correct that it is only for the following things?:
Card Storyline: e.g. Coach Goblin for Different Dimension. (D.D. Crazy Beast)
Image: e.g. Wynnda, Miko of the Gusta and Wynndarl, Sage of the Gusta for Charmers (Wynn the Wind Charmer). Harpies' Hunting Ground to Ojama and Gravity Collapse to Itsu.
Support for only specific cards in an archetype: e.g. Spark Blaster to HERO.
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 13:18, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
I do think "famrelated" or whatever is needed.
Agreed, Japanese names have ZERO to do with family categorization. "Warriors" will like this.
I don't think cardstoryline is a proper use. I do like being able to use the navbox to find stuff like that though, so I would completely support a new navbox for that. The "Charmers" use is the right use. The other two are not. That's card trivia.
Yes, this.
Also, cards which support an archetype through supporting counters. "A" Cell Breeding Device" is related since it supports "Aliens" through its use of A-Counters. It is not technically support.
I want to take this time to specify the use of "archsupport." A card that incidentally happens to support all archetype members is not support (ie. "Sanctuary in the Sky" is not archsupport for "Archlord"). Archsupport is exclusively for cards that have the archetype name in them in quotes (and "Archfiend cards"). "Fifth Hope" is "Elemental HERO support. Cards that support ALL individual members are also not archsupport (ie, "Bug Switch" is not "Crashbug" support). I've been going through archetypes to remove misuse, but since these pages may be hit during recategorization, I though I'd let everyone else know. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 17:08, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
You two have basically summed up my opinions on this, so I don't have much more to add.
I'm not going to be much help in deciding between "Family", "Series", and "Group"; though I've decided I don't care for "Family" as much as the other two any more, I can't make up my mind between them and keep flipping from one to the other.
We want to be careful about just how fine we get with shades of meaning for parameters that are otherwise completely arbitrary; past a certain point, and the distinction is all but lost on people and we suddenly have to spend significant amounts of time undoing well-intentioned but incorrect edits, or add hidden comments everywhere saying "don't change this".
For "Speed Spell", I'll say again: what needs to be added to {{CardTable2}} to elevate its treatment from an archetype to a game mechanic? I don't really know how Speed Spell works, so I don't understand where it fits in with other mechanics. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:35, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
I agree on all Cheesedude has said;
For Speed Spell; it should be like this:
On Card Table:
#switch: {{{attribute|}}} <!-- Spell/Trap -->
| Spell = "#339966"
add
| Speed Spell = "#339966"
On each card page:
"|attribute = Spell" --> "|attribute = Speed Spell"
"|archetype1 = Speed Spells\n" --> ""
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 00:26, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Added. Is there any sort of Speed Spell icon similar to the other Attribute icons that we could use? ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 02:51, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
They use the same attribute Icon as Spell cards; but in games, they're all supposed to have this icon: http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu5/Falzar_FZ/Yu-Gi-Oh%20Wikia/SP-0.png except, it's white, so you can't see it very well with this background; inverting the colours would give this: http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu5/Falzar_FZ/Yu-Gi-Oh%20Wikia/SP-1.png
Also; as mentioned in Talk:Speed Spell; it would then create the links to Normal Speed Spell Card, Ritual Speed Spell Card and Quick-Play Speed Spell Card.
So, I'm considering if they should all be redirected to Speed Spell. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:24, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
If you can get an SVG version of the inverted one uploaded, I can add that to CardTable2.
They may as well be, for now at least (maybe we'll eventually want to split out separate articles for them). ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:33, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Speed Spell. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:56, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Did someone mention about the "related" section in the template of the archetype template? why are cards that does not seems to be related under the related section? just because the monsters are in the artwork does not makes them related. should we clarify this (or is this aready clarified)? -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 05:40, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
That's the 9th point. Currently, consensus seems to be Harpies' Hunting Ground is not related to Ojama and Gravity Collapse is not related to Itsu. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 05:43, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Added, like so: SpellSpeed Spell Is that fine? ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:39, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
I reckon that looks fine. Mind botting the edits to the card pages? -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 07:12, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Done. Note that there may be some misnumbered archetype parameters now; I didn't realize until most of the way through that I wasn't even trying to check for other archetype parameters that might need renumbered after removing "|archetypeN = Speed Spell". ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:11, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
You mean these ones? -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 08:15, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, those and a scant handful of others. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:18, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Other than the fact that it's a card type now, why are we calling the article, "Speed Spell Cards"? It just sounds wrong. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 16:24, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Mostly just a consequence of slotting it into the existing functionality in CardTable2. It wouldn't be too hard to change it back to just "Speed Spell(s)", but I have no comment on which is actually preferable. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 16:36, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Also; to match Spell Card and Trap Card.
I should probably get a bot some time... -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 01:31, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant above. I still think it sounds wrong though. But I suppose it's not really an issue. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 16:21, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

do we really need the king family/group etc, as well as some others without support such as spider or ape etc? monarch, wicked god, sacred beast etc are notable enough to keep its group/archetype but what about others? people might start making more such as turtles or even mushroom and start arguing that they are a group. -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 14:50, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

If there's an obvious theme (generally meaning that an individual or a themed group in the anime/manga uses cards with a given theme), there's a pretty good argument for the group. Otherwise, whoever's arguing for the group should be prepared to explain really well why they think the group should be considered a group. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 17:28, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Is there a problem with the "Kings are a series of cards used by Jack Atlas in the manga." grouping?
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 01:28, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
That would be an obvious theme, I think. Is Jack the only common thread to his King cards, or are there common design/effect style elements or the like as well? ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:34, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
if an individual uses the theme and it is considered a group, then about the fairytales cards by leon? a fairytale group? spirits by luna = spirits monster group? some guy in tag force use turtles so turtle group? Chumley uses australian deck so australian group? -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 16:50, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
Basically, yes. I don't think we'd encourage creation of pages for groups like we currently do for Archetypes, though; it'd probably be set up so that if a page exists already, it's linked, but otherwise, the name is just displayed as unlinked text. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 22:25, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

So...

... ... goddammit, guys. I hope you people finished making up your minds on the archetype policy. If so, sticky thread this shit so the rest of us can start abiding to it. ... i swear to god i'll delete the entire template one of these days. *facepalm* Huajun Chen (talkcontribs) 04:06, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this time around, I'll make sure that they will actually be enforced, unlike the last few times which was merely a discussion. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 04:46, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Good, good. I look forward to seeing that. Huajun Chen (talkcontribs) 05:57, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
3) Vehicroid split into Roid and Vehicroid is done; the pages will need a bit more of a cleanup, however.
4) Speed Spells to Card Types is complete.
There hasn't really been any progress on 5) Decide on using Family, Series or Group.
Consensus seems to be, for 8) Japanese names have nothing to do with categorization of Family/Series/Group. This will be applied as they are moved from archetypes to Family
For 7) Infobox/Family and FamilyNavbox; this should be made after 5).
Basically, now, once 5 is agreed on then we continue. If no progress after a while longer, then we keep Family. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 04:46, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I said before, I'll be no help in deciding on which one; I keep waffling between "Series" and "Group" (I have, at least, decided that I like both of these better than "Family"). Since I'll likely be the one actually implementing this stuff, I think the way I'll do it is to just pick whichever term I like better at the moment of implementation if one term is not settled on beforehand (that's totally the fair and unbiased way to do it, right? XD ). I think I'll move on here, regardless of whether discussion has happened, around next Friday or so (though if there's active discussion that looks like it'll resolve stuff, that will get held off until the discussion winds down), fair enough? ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:35, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Well, at least it means it would be either "Series" and "Group" that should be used, and not family. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:55, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
I slightly prefer series over group. That said, as long as its not family, I don't care what we call it. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 04:04, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Calling them groups is a bit too vague... maybe...
Any thoughts on why we might prefer one over the other might help others consider which to choose. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 07:30, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
The word "series" is already used on some archetype pages. Since all archetypes would also be classified as series/groups, there's less work to be done when we get around to doing this. Other than that, I just prefer the way that "series" sounds. Group is also accurate though. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 16:42, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

One more thing

What do we do for "sub-archetype" support cards? When a card supports "HERO", do we list it in CardTable2 as supporting all five sub-archetypes as well? Or does simply listing it in "HERO" suffice? Same for the "Meklords". I originally thought we should definitely add all that, but as I'm going through more archetypes, I'm starting to have second thoughts. This won't affect most archetypes though, so if you want to start with those that don't have sub-archetypes before this part if resolved, go for it. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 16:16, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

At first, I wanted to say "yes we should", but thinking more about it, I'm thinking it might be better to not do so, since the subarchetypes are not explicitly supported by those cards, but rather "inherit" the support on merit of the archetype name. Instead, I think, a clear note on subarchetype pages that members are supported by the parent archetype's support cards should suffice (along with making sure that all members of the subarchetype are also tagged as members of the parent archetype). ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:15, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly what my original thought was and what my current thoughts are. Yay. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 20:22, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

done?

so is anything implemented? apparently people are still creating articles like this. more are likely to show up? -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 06:16, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Double Tributer should be enough for those; instead of making a new page.
Right now, it seems like "Series" is preferred over "Group" by just a little bit, and "Family" is bad.
So, now we wait on when Dinoguy has spare time to make the templates and stuff.
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 06:21, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
Deleted the page.
Dinoguy, if you want a list of archetypes that need to be transferred to the new category, I can make one up if you like (actually, I'm going to either way, since I'm curious). Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 12:22, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
Right, I've been rather distracted over the past few days and haven't had the chance to get around to this (though I have thought some on potential implementations, and I think there's a way to set it up that won't require new parameters in {{CardTable2}} (which means no mass edit runs (automated or otherwise) to get cards switched over, and no maintenance runs (automated or otherwise) to make sure archetype members/related aren't getting classified as series members/related, and vice versa), though it would mean implicitly treating everything as an archetype whenever SMW is disabled (which should be fine, since the archetype/series navboxes don't work and are hidden at those times anyways).
At this point I'm about 75% sure I'll just go with "Series". If anyone wants to dissuade me, now is the time to do so. ;)
A list isn't necessary for setting up the initial framework, but will be needed for the actual work of getting everything transferred properly. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 16:42, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

List

Assume that anything listed here that has support its navbox to be a misuse of archsupport. If I missed any or if I put an actual archetype on this list, please fix.

So, out of 307 archetypes, at least 130 of them are not archetypes. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 15:55, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this long list, almost 25% can be deleted... but most people would prefer them to be kept. -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 04:45, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
and Infestation (archetype). (It didn't have the category before)
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 05:12, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, you can go ahead and rename (archetype) pages to (series) as appropriate; there's no need to wait for proper template support. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:01, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
There are others using the archetype template but with no article im sure... -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 11:02, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, whoa, wait, what. Can we please have a three (or four) card minimum for a bunch of cards to be considered a series/archetype? I'm looking at the Burning Skull and Hidden Knight archetypes and it only consists of two cards. What. If anyone insists on keeping it on the list as a 'series' or 'archetype' or whatever name it's going by now, I want that person to also make an archetype page for the following cards:
Bamboo Sword: Broken Bamboo Sword, Golden Bamboo Sword
Phoenixian Archetype: Phoenixian Cluster Amaryllis & Phoenixian Seed
Flint Archetype: Flint, Flint Lock, Flint Missile
Hell I don't even know what to call this Water Archetype: Cranium Fish, Ocean's Keeper, Thousand-Eyes Jellyfish
Solemn Archetype: Solemn Authority, Solemn Judgment, Solemn Warning ... hey, they don't have to actually support each other right? Just as long they have the same word in the titles or similar artwork, right?
Forbidden Archetype: Forbidden Lance, Forbidden Chalice
Maiden Archetype: You know, Blair's card that are centered around Maiden in Love?
Mystic Archetype: Mystic Egg, Mystic Dragon... there are several others and Blair plays those cards too.
Of the Goddess Archetype: Temptation of the Goddess, Mischief of the Goddess, Footsteps of the Goddess
We might as well have a "Food" archetype while we're at it... I mean, if that's how low our standards are going to be now. I CAN GO ON AND ON IF YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO DO.
By the way, you forgot the Spice archetype. It already exists but isn't on the list. Huajun Chen (talkcontribs) 22:17, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but spice is an archetype with support Mixed Spice Garamasala. I really think that spider and clown should be deleted... as well as most common noun without support (i don't think they are series either) -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 02:49, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
We have a page for "Bamboo Sword". Which is actually an archetype per the card text of the other two. They don't say "Broken Bamboo Sword", they say a "Bamboo Sword" Equip Spell Card. But yeah, a lot of the above could be deleted, but that's a separate discussion. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 03:29, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
"DISCLAIMER: Reclassification does not imply endorsement." =D ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 04:36, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
I do not approve of this. Huajun Chen (talkcontribs) 05:18, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
Fossil, Penguin, Symphonic Warrior are archetype! they have support cards! not sure about the dark magicians, since dark curtain actually search for a "dark magician" monster in the anime (yugi summon dark magician girl...) but dark magicians is debatable. -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 15:45, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the individual lvl monsters (armed dragon, mystic swordsman etc) be listed? allure queen has a support so it is an archetype but the others do not have one -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 06:30, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
I finish adding the level monster expect Allure Queen and Horus. Those two are archetype, as they have support. There is a Sasuke samurai archetype, that isn't created yet. WinterNightmare (talkcontribs) 06:53, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
Removed number. in anime, can only be destroyed by "number" -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 13:51, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can we change Polymerization (archetype) to (series), or something else, since they're not really an archetype. They're just a list of cards that can perform Fusion Summons. LastMinute (talkcontribs) 07:05, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

"Just so everyone knows, you can go ahead and rename (archetype) pages to (series) as appropriate; there's no need to wait for proper template support." ;) ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 07:09, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
I thought he suggested it because Polymerization wasn't mentioned on the list above. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 07:12, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right, so he did (in my defense, it's half past two in the morning here, and I really should be in bed already =D ). How to handle those, though, is just as clear: if there're no support cards, it's not an archetype, and you don't have to ask if it should be changed (though you should probably leave a link in any edit summaries pointing here, in case anyone complains). ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 07:34, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Just to note the effect of Synchro Fusionist: If this card is sent to the Graveyard as a Synchro Material Monster, you can add 1 Spell Card from your Deck to your hand with "Polymerization" or "Fusion" in the card name, except "Diffusion Wave-Motion".
So is it an archetype? maybe only the spell cards are part of the archetype -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 01:53, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Fusion Sage has old wording; it is referring to only Polymerization; not any card with Polymerization in its name, so that does not count. Also, Synchro Fusionist's wording is different to the wording used for archetypes, so it does not count either
The same seems to apply to Toon Table of Contents.
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 01:59, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Exactly; "with "X" in its [card] name" != ""X" card" (it would help if someone could explain how these phrases differ in Japanese lores, though... and also how (or if) Japanese lores distinguish between an effect calling for a card with a particular name, versus an archetype).
This does raise the question of how to refer to these particular groups, though; they aren't archetypes, but they do receive support (I was going to point to Arsenal Summoner as another example of this, but its Japanese effect specifies that cards must have "ガーディアン" in their Japanese names, which automatically excludes the cards that are specified as not being supported in its English effect).
On a related note, the Polymerization series looks to be a real mess; it's not going to be much fun to clean up. =/ ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 04:22, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Isn't a similar wording used for "Archfiend" support cards such as "Falling Down"? A least in the TCG, due to the whole naming debacle? But yeah, knowing what the OCG uses would be great.
This has been bugging me since I joined this wiki. Thank you for the link to "Synchro Fusionist". I didn't even know it existed and it explains why Polymerization and Fusion are even thought be archetypes. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 16:18, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't "Falling Down say Archfiend card? -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 22:02, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
That's why I said similar. My point was that it doesn't use quotes, though I suppose I maybe just should said that. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 02:57, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
English uses two types of wordings: search for a card with "xxxxx" in its name (with or without quotes) and search for a "xxxxx" card (with or without quotes). they actually sort of means the same thing. the wordings are always changing ("offer a monster on your side of the field as a tribute" to just "tribute a monster"). they can actually means the same thing, but with updated wordings. personally i think that both are used for archetype cards... what about the japanese cards? someone mind checking? -Lpoi (talkcontribs) 11:29, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Choice of names

I've no problem with making a distinction between supported and unsupported series, but the choice of names and which applies to which (archetype = group of connected cards with direct support, family = group of connected cards with no direct support) seems arbitrary to me. The names were seemingly assigned for convenience, not because they're logical, official or commonly used. Also Konami have used "archetype" in a way even more lenient than that "family" definition, apparently referring to any Deck type; "Beast archetype", "Dandywarrior archetype", "Synchro Cat archetype". Can we simply use "series" or to refer to a group of cards and then use "supported series" and "unsupported series" to distinguish the two types or else "archetype", "supported archetype" and "unsupported archetype"?

(Admittedly I haven't read the entire forum above this post, so apologies if I'm overlooking or repeating anything already discussed.) -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:48, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

I believe archetype IS commonly used. At least it was on Pojo when I used to go there years ago and it still is on forums such as Janime today. And in this case, neither group has an official name. So we need to use something to categorize them. Maybe we need a conjectural name template? Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 02:59, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "archetype" is commonly used, but I don't think "archetype" and "family" are commonly used to distinguish between supported and unsupported.
I don't think it's logical that "family" be used to refer to series that lack support. Going by the current definitions: To be a family you must be related in some way. "Charmers" are related in some way, making them a family. "Elemental Heroes" are related in the same way, but aren't considered a family because they're related in another way too. That's like saying brothers are family because they're related, but brothers who work together are not family because they're co-workers.
Since archetype is commonly used to refer to groups of cards, supported and unsupported, there's no harm in using that term. When trying to distinguish between supported and unsupported archetypes, why not just the terms "supported archetype" and "unsupported archetype" instead of redefining a term and coming up with another term that isn't used outside this site? -- Deltaneos (talk) 16:33, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. All archetypes are families, but not all families are archetypes.
I have no problem with that. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 16:42, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
As Cheesedude said, the terms are not exclusive to each other. ;) That being said, I think our working definition of "archetype" in the above discussion wasn't simply "the group of cards related in X way, with explicit support", but rather "the group of all cards that receive explicit support from X card(s)" (according to Japanese card names only, without looking at more specific support criteria such as card type in most cases); each of these definitions can potentially include cards not included by the other, so the distinction is an important one to be made.
A series (you'll be relieved to know, at least a bit, that we're going with "series" instead of "family"), on the other hand, is a group of cards related thematically to each other - used by the same player, for instance, or artistically or nominally connected - and excludes thematically unrelated cards that would receive support from a hypothetical support card. As a result of this, there are many archetypes which are precisely a series, but there are also many that are broader (or, in a few cases I'm sure, narrower) than a series. In practice, though, there's little point in distinguishing between these in most cases, and any such differentiation should be done on the archetype/series page itself.
As to official terminology, I see no reason to worry about how Konami refers to these; they have yet to publish a formal definition anywhere, and different Konami representatives therefore are going to have different ideas of what exactly an "archetype" actually is. The fan community, on the other hand, has had a much sharper working definition for years now, and in this discussion (and maybe some others), we've decided what the absolute border of the definition should be, for our purposes at least. As long as we link judiciously to archetype from other articles, and have a clear explanation in its article just what we're talking about, I don't see why we should be worried about any confusion. We also have precedent, to a certain extent, of ignoring/modifying/extending official terminology in rarity names, and I have yet to see any readers being confused over our in-house rarities after looking at our definitions of those rarities.
As a last note, I don't know that this actually received wider support, but for a while now, I've been using the term "group" to refer to arbitrary collections of cards where either I have to frame the definition of a more precise term (such as above), or where we simply don't have any such more precise term; I find "group" to work quite well in this capacity, but YMMV. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:30, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.