|Forums:||Index → Help desk → Constant Issue with Dark counterpart series|
|Please sign your comments with ~~~~. See Help:Signature and Help:Talk pages for further information.|
|This forum thread has been unedited for 574 days and is considered archived. Please don't add to the discussion, unless absolutely necessary.|
I’m not sure if this is the right forum to post this. However, I need to talk about a constant issue regarding the Dark counterpart series of monsters.
To place everything in context, the series officially began with Phantom Darkness, where a group of, and I quote the series page: “DARK monsters that are identified by an existing non-DARK counterpart and 「ダーク」 (Dark) in their Japanese name”.
When it was established as a series, those were the main elements everyone agreed upon that any card needed to be classified as part of the series, with the extra addition of having to share identical stats with the non-DARK version.
With the release of Dark Doriado, who lacked all elements sans “Dark” in its name, the stats requirement was removed, leaving only “Dark in their name” and “non-Dark counterpart” as the requirements.
However, because other series and archetypes, also share the concept of having DARK monsters based on an existing counterpart, including Malefic, Evilswarm and Shaddoll. Some users started to add them to the series based solely on the fact that they were DARK versions of monsters, ignoring the primary element of “Dark in their name”.
Because of this, a disputed section in the article was created. Were all monster that could be thought as being part of the Dark counterpart series, but lacked one of the elements, were placed. Archetypes, like the previously mentioned Malefic and Evilswarm, and monsters like Adreus, Keeper of Armageddon and Darkflare Dragon.
I started being an editor for that specific article around 2012, and up to this day, this issue remains. Whenever a new series/archetype that contains “DARK monsters based on an existing counterpart” shows up, users try to add them into the Dark counterpart series, without carefully reading what elements identify the monsters in the series, basing their judgment only in the card’s appearance, which is an understandable mistake.
Now, with the release of the Twilightsworn monsters, a subarchetype of the very popular Lightsworn, the issue came back again. Users started to add them as members into the Dark counterpart series, despite they belonging in the disputed section.
I have been reading the article as of late, I believe some rewriting is due. I will gladly do it, however I’m not sure if I can just go on and start rewriting the article to better clarify what cards belong to this series and what cards belong in the disputed section.
Also, I would like to know your opinion regarding classifying the disputed cards as being “related” to the Dark counterpart series. Maybe even renaming the series just “Dark”, as I believe the main reason the issue keeps arising lies on calling it “Dark counterpart”.
Thank you very much for your attention, again, if this is the wrong forum, please excuse me. I’m eager to know your opinion, and if I have the blessing of an admin or content moderator to proceed with the rewriting of my beloved article. Kentaru Z (talk • contribs) 04:28, December 13, 2018 (UTC)