This is the talk page for discussing the page, Spatial Dragon.

Please try to

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • Be welcoming

No Deletion

I think this is legit. I don't see any problem. It should stay. Anyone else agree? --Rocket.knight.777 (talkcontribs) 03:00, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

I consider this on the weaker spectrum as far as series go. There's a theme, but I don't see it as strong enough to warrant an actual page. --Golden Key (talkcontribs) 03:26, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
This shouldnt be considered a series at all. Even Princesses (Curran and Ebon) are more of a series then this, and they no longer have a page. These guys are just fancy dragons that Mizael uses to summon Tachyon. They hardly have any similarities at all. NMBRHNTR64 (talkcontribs) 04:07, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
Really? They all focus on Level 8 swarming, in a sense. Sure the Gimmick Puppets do too, but still....--Rocket.knight.777 (talkcontribs) 05:16, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
So what? Yeah, they have similar effects. A LOT of Decks uses cards with similar effects. They have no indication of being related to each other, ergo, not an archetype. If they had "the Spacial Dragon" or something like that in their names, then yeah, make a page. This is not one of those cases. NMBRHNTR64 (talkcontribs) 05:41, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
a) Learn how to spell, it's "Spatial". b) Series don't need to be ties together by names. Look at the Sparrow Family. --Rocket.knight.777 (talkcontribs) 05:46, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Rocket.Knight.777. And let me justify something; You go along with adding cards to the Knight and Sphere archetypes just because those words are in certain card names, despite the fact that they serve no purpose towards those archetypes. You are also okay with other archetypes that thrive on irrelevancies such as the Gem Dragons and Treasure Cards despite those having similarities by coincidence. It's outright hypocrisy if you think that the Spatial Dragons shouldn't be a thing, and yet those two "archetypes" get away with it. To Hell with that. Either let them be a thing like those two, or get rid of the two because they fit the same context as this situation right here. FAYAL (talkcontribs) 05:54, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

Rocket.knight, Don't make snide comments like that, they are unnecessary. Yeah, the Sparrow Family had their own TV show in the anime. Plus, look at effects of D.D. Jet Iron, Beast-Warrior Puma, and Ironhammer the Giant. Their effects were made to play off each other, even naming specific members in their effects. These "Spatial Dragons" are not quite the same.

P.S. Spacial and Spatial are synonyms. Calling them "Spacial Dragons" is just a plausible as "Spatial Dragons". NMBRHNTR64 (talkcontribs) 05:58, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

Are*, and why are you even still arguing? Nobody wants to argue semantic technicalities such as this with a Yuma/Nasch faker. FAYAL (talkcontribs) 06:07, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
Hey FAYAL, why don't you try being a bit more mature here? Seriously, I don't understand what people plan to accomplish by insulting each other. It's like you are TRYING to start trouble. NMBRHNTR64 (talkcontribs) 06:15, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
Just saying, you're not exactly the best person to discuss this with. You didn't even get the princess thing right. It's Curran and Pikeru, not Ebon for God's sakes. You not only have a flawed argument, but the evidence you give has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. FAYAL (talkcontribs) 06:20, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not being familiar with an archetype that doesn't even have a page anymore. And there you are again with the insulting. The way you are acting makes it impossible to discuss anything with you. If you have such a problem with my evidence, then explain to me in detail how it has "more holes in it than Swiss cheese". NMBRHNTR64 (talkcontribs) 06:25, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that. It's not so much the evidence being flawed, but you're expression of said evidence. If this were a court system, and you were like Phoenix Wright or something, you probably would have screwed your client over because of how badly you presented the evidence. Interpretation of a counter-argument and correctly stating it is key to actually posing a good argument. If one were to screw up as many times as you have, their argument would have either collapsed on itself making them look like a fool, or suit itself to help the opposing side making one look like a complete and utter dumbass. You've only done the former, but going any further will probably make the latter happen. In summation, it's not the tool, it's the worker. FAYAL (talkcontribs) 06:33, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

I see, so not only have you failed to support your claim that my evidence "has more holes in it than Swiss cheese", but you are also changing the subject. In addition, I feel like you are still trying to insult me, whether you really are trying to or not. This discussion is not about me, it is about whether we should classify these monsters as their own archetype or not. I suggest you try sticking with the topic at hand if you really want this page to stay, instead of trying to explain to me how I should present my evidence. Remember this, this isn't court, and I am not an attorney. I am just a simple user trying to support my claim, so don't expect me to be perfect while I am trying to do so. NMBRHNTR64 (talkcontribs) 06:47, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

A) I was being hypothetical, B) Insulting you isn't productive, so stop bitching about it, C) Nobody considers you or any other stranger/jerk-off on the internet worth their time, making insulting you a huge waste, D) Presenting substantial evidence is a key to winning over arguments like this in the future so stop assuming that what I'm telling you isn't useful advice, and E) I wouldn't have changed the subject if I had known that you had or hadn't read that bit about other crappily put together archetypes I posted earlier. If I get a response to that part, we can get back on the rusty tracks. FAYAL (talkcontribs) 07:03, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
Hey now, no need to get so riled up... I for one believe that neither of you have room to talk. In my opinion (coming from a newcomer's point of view), I'd say this page shouldn't exist and neither should the Gem Dragons and Treasure Cards. But who am I to say what to do? I still just come here to get info, not give it.New Sentoryu (talkcontribs) 09:14, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
I'm also for deleting this. It's just Mizael's Deck, nothing more. Yes, they have similar names and focus on Rank 8 (aka Tachyon Dragon), but that isn't enough to define this as a "series". ZEXAL especially has taken to sticking to certain themes and terminology with character's Decks, which does result in a large amount of card pools that have barely anything in common with similar names. I even think pages like "Infection" shouldn't exist because it has nothing in common other than being cards used by Mr. Heartland. TheScarecrow14 (talkcontribs) 11:52, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Sentoryu and Scarecrow. Glad to see someone around here is capable of giving their opinion without insulting each other. Come to think of it, Anna's monsters are all the same way as well. NMBRHNTR64 (talkcontribs) 14:56, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion has not really progressed much, so I wanna suggest this. How about we put it to a vote? NMBRHNTR64 (talkcontribs) 03:12, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but how would we even do that? FAYAL (talkcontribs) 03:33, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
FAYAL, "Knight and "Sphere" are archetypes. This is not. This is a series. They are different things.
I'll admit I've wanted a page for Mizael's dragons for a while, but I don't have much to say besides "I want there to be one", which isnt' exactly the soundest argument. So I say delete. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 03:46, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

FAYAL, to answer your question I have created to following topic. I got this idea from UltimateKuriboh when there was a discussion about a piece of Trivia about Number 70. It is simple as this, put your signature under your answer to the question below. In about 48 hours, the future of the page will be decided based on the number of signatures under "Yes" and "No". Does this seem fair? NMBRHNTR64 (talkcontribs) 04:39, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear enough theme here, there are more then 3 members (4 and an anime-only support card), and they all work towards summoning rank 8's. One of our own pages defines exactly that as a Series (srsly first friggin sentence, why deny what we already defined). This thing is a series, no question there. Real question, what does this page contribute? I'd like to keep the page, though i think just noting this on Mizar's deck section would suffice too. also, "Reason for deletion: That would be an archetype named as Dragons, not Spacial Dragons." what happened to that? ....actually thinking about that, how is that a reason to delete instead of rename? on that note Yusei's Synchro Warrior series is just called Warriors here, so i suppose "Dragons" would be it, but should probably stay as spatial Dragons since Dragons is kinda......too general i think the term would be.

Also, did the existence of this tiny page REALLY just cause all that crap and mudslinging i just read through? If this is enough to cause all this, then look at Ape, Gun Ogre, or Wheel. if those can stick around, why not this one? DreadKaiser (talkcontribs) 09:26, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Other pages existing that should be deleted does not justify the existence of this page; it just means they should be deleted too (though you should keep in mind that I haven't looked at the specific pages you pointed to, so they may individually be worth keeping). ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 15:43, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Im all for deletion.

Yano88 (talkcontribs) 20:00, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Hard to justify this or the Forest (archetype) pages. The Forest page is mostly getting away with the same nonsensical reasoning that the Abyss archetype page, namely that shared names is all that is needed and not a common theme/mechanic/playstyle. I lost in that debate since the Wikia solely uses names to determine what an archetype is when making pages, and chooses not to exclude cards that clearly do not fit with a defined archetype as designed by Konami. That said, these cards do not match in name (required for the Wikia standard for an archetype) and do not really have enough to distinguish themselves to be considered a series as well. Opinions dont really mean anything in this argument. It has to go based on the standards set by the staff of YGO Wikia. - Axel Shiokawa (talkcontribs) 22:53, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of, the pages mentioned above should be marked for deletion as well if they haven't already (Gun Ogre is the best of them IMO, and even that doesn't have much). As for this article, it works better as a decklist on its owner's page than as an actual series page, because let's face it, that's basically the state of the whole thing. And Mizar has his decks listed, so...
There just might be a chance for these cards to actually form a series (i.e. the release of cards with more specific effects I guess), but we'd have to wait and see. As it is to me now, there's just not enough to really tie it all together. Lord Grammaticus (talkcontribs) 01:45, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
Axel, if that's what you got out of the debate about the "Abyss" page, you clearly weren't reading it properly. Its not just the names. Its support. "Forest" has a support card, ergo its an archetype. Same with "Abyss". This does not. This is a series, which do not have to match as far as names go (though this does not mean that they can't match nor that matching can't be a factor). Theme is the important thing. That being said, I support deletion in this case. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 02:22, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
Axel, our archetype/series classification system is, broadly speaking, exceedingly simple: an archetype is defined by any card that has an effect that supports any card with a given string in its Japanese lore, and includes all cards with that string in their name; a series is defined as any group of cards with a strong thematic tie. Some of the details get pretty messy, but if you look just at the broad picture, the concept really couldn't get any simpler. We document all archetypes - if it has a support card, it gets an article, and if a card has the required string in its Japanese name, it's a member. And ideally we want to document all series, but realistically we have to limit it to prevent stupid stuff from being documented; the simplest such limit is our Rule of Three: a series must have at least three members, otherwise it's just a pair of related cards.
You are more than welcome to criticize our classification methodology, and to challenge any individual archseries article, but only if you demonstrate that you at least understand the difference between an archetype and a series, which you have not yet done - and, preferably, not until you have reviewed the discussions that led to the current situation and thus understand the reasoning for it all. In addition, if your criticism relies on any point which has already been discussed and decided upon, you should not be surprised if it is summarily dismissed; no one here has any interest in rehashing discussion that took us months to resolve the first time 'round. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:22, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Should the "Spacial Dragon" Page be deleted?


NMBRHNTR64 (talkcontribs) 04:39, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Golden Key --Golden Key (talkcontribs) 13:25, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talkcontribs) 19:15, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Neos01 (talkcontribs) 19:17, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Axel Shiokawa (talkcontribs) 22:40, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

TheScarecrow14 (talkcontribs) 00:40, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Lord Grammaticus (talkcontribs) 01:45, December 26, 2013 (UTC)


FAYAL (talkcontribs) 05:15, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

DreadKaiser (talkcontribs) 07:21, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

--With Dyson Sphere at my side, the universe will kneel before me. - DysonSlinky (talkcontribs) 20:45, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+