I reverted the deletion, but there's little else to talk about. As said, the names are on the card page, and refer to the same English translation. Energy X 14:36, September 15, 2018 (UTC)

Then what purpose does the Names pages serve? Every name can be put on the card page, but so far I was under the impression that the Names pages' function is to provide a little bit more details on said names - for example, translating it back into English so that international readers can understand too. If that's not the purpose of those pages, then what is? SpecB (talkcontribs) 21:30, September 15, 2018 (UTC)
I assume this means no further problems with the contents of said Names pages. As such, can I request removal of the deletion tags from Card_Names:Galaxy-Eyes_Photon_Dragon and Card_Names:Neo_Galaxy-Eyes_Photon_Dragon? SpecB (talkcontribs) 16:25, October 6, 2018 (UTC)
Nobody said that; people are not interested in that kind of discussion. Deleting the articles is also a likely outcome. Energy X 16:59, October 6, 2018 (UTC)
Nobody said anything, hence my assumption. If this is important, then there would be a discussion, and there should be a wiki policy about it. If it's not important, then the articles should not be deleted. Simple as that. SpecB (talkcontribs) 17:57, October 6, 2018 (UTC)
Mainly my issue here is the lack of standard. "Same as the English translation" is a very subjective way to make a decision. Are "Galaxy-Eyes" and "Galaxy-Eye" the same? Are "Galaxy-Eyes" and "Galaxyeyes" the same? Maybe you would say yes to some examples, no to others, but then a different admin would have a different opinion on them. Needless to say, different admins adhering to different selection methods of what is admissible and what is not is a really bad way to "run" a Wikia, whose goal is to provide objective information about a certain topic - in this case, YGO. Hence me saying that if "sameness" of the names is a no-go, then what is and what isn't "same" should be outlined. Furthermore, as far as I could tell, translating the foreign language name back into English doesn't seem to be a standard, either. Had I submitted the aforementioned Names pages without explaining what the names mean in English, would there be an issue with them? And yes, this discussion might not be important for others, heck, maybe it's not important for you, either, but it is for me since I intend to slowly upload all card names from the Hungarian dub, some of which are literal, or close-to-literal translations of the English (or in some cases, Japanese) card names, and while I intend to adhere to every policy this Wikia has, I don't think anyone is expected to adhere to non-existing policies. If there's no policy, but you think the page should be deleted, then for all intents and purposes, and with all due respect, that's just your opinion, and non-policy-related opinions should not be enforced on the users. If you, personally, are not interested in discussing this topic further, then I would love to discuss it with someone who is interested; and if you, personally, are okay with discussing this, then I hope you see my point. SpecB (talkcontribs) 18:38, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

Well you did create a page that states Hungarian name and its translation in English, which is basically the same as the name of the card in English. Had the difference been in, as you say, a hyphen or a letter, I would not have objections. I don't approve of making pointless pages; after all, this sort of redundancy just decreases the quality of the pages.

Further, if you are so adamant about keeping the page, why not asking this user that removed the content of the page? Furthermore, if your intent was to create more pages like that, shouldn't you have made a forum page first? Energy X 18:56, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

I understand where you coming from when you mean "pointless pages", but I disagree. A Card Names entry, whether same in English or otherwise, carries two bits of information: one is the official translated name, for those who speak the language, and the other is the name translated back, for those who don't. Just having the translated name in an entry is already a piece of valuable information, since then someone who didn't see the dubbed version can learn what the official translated name of a card is - they wouldn't know beforehand that it was a (near-)literal translation of the English version.
As for why I didn't ask that user, it's because they are new and initially I assumed they were just expressing their opinion about the page, and didn't think much of their edit, since they didn't react on the talk page afterwards, and it doesn't seem they've been online since. You, on the other hand, seemed to be invested in the topic, and since you're an admin, I figured I'd need to discuss this issue mainly with you. After all, it's you who'd decide whether to carry on with the deletion or not.
Lastly, I didn't realize I needed to create a forum page about creating pages. Would it go in the Wiki Discussion section? SpecB (talkcontribs) 22:24, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

Fur Hire: Beat

When does a rabbit have beast like horns?... Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 12:59, November 11, 2019 (UTC)

Jackalope? Energy X 13:11, November 11, 2019 (UTC)
Then it would be a jackalope and not a rabbit. Plus jacklopes typically have antlers not horns. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 13:13, November 11, 2019 (UTC)

Pit, please only edit after both you and SpecB has reached a consenus. You now look like you are forcing your opinion on SpecB and will turn this into an edit war otherwise. Thank you. BlazeWu (talkcontribs) 07:28, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

I'm waiting for his response at this point, and likewise he's forcing his upon me. But there is too many things about Beat that aren't rabbit-like, such as the tail and horns. His mantle could also possibly be folded wings. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 12:19, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

Here's what this entire situation looks like in order, Pitifulheartles. I've made a suggestion on the Fur Hire Talk page early October, hoping to invite arguments otherwise and a discussion as to whether Beat is a rabbit or, back at that point, porcupine. I knew I had a case, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. After a month passed, and I went ahead and made the edit, thinking if noone replied, that would usually indicate at least silent agreement. (FWIW this is how many other wikis work, anyways.) Then you came and without discussing anything, changed Beat from rabbit to chimera. The only arguments you brought up were included in the edit summary, which is not the appropriate place to discuss an edit. If you brought those arguments to the Talk page instead, we would have talked about it, and by this time probably reached a conclusion. When I brought up the situation on Discord, asking what to do if someone changes something without at least attempting to discuss it beforehand, 0123456789 The Great reverted your edit, which then you reverted, again without attempting to discuss it, and only opening a section on 0123456789's Talk page after your edit. I immediately replied to your query there, bringing up what I think were valid points for rabbit, and also valid points against chimera. Like I said above, if I didn't know I had a case for rabbit, I wouldn't have made the edit in the first place. Then three days passed without any reaction from you, so I figured you might be silently agreeing with me, after all, you don't have to reply if you agree. So I made the reversion to rabbit, where I admit I forgot to mention in the edit summary that I've done so based on my belief that you didn't want to pursue the chimera line anymore. And then you again made the edit before attempting to discuss the change. It feels that you're trying to force your opinion because you're doing things in reverse order, edit then discuss, which is mostly done by people who are not interested in the discussion itself, only that their edit is what remains on the page in the end. So you can probably understand how this leaves a bad aftertaste. Now, I'm not going to insinuate that you're having bad or selfish intentions, only that you still have things to learn about how these discussions should proceed. (I'll leave this comment separately so if you feel like it, you can reply to just this, and I'll write another one about the content Fur Hire itself.) SpecB (talkcontribs) 14:57, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

For one, there's nothing saying that those are horns and not some sort of headgear. Secondly, I would think that the point of the "origin creature" column in that table is to say what creature it most resembles. Regardless of Beat having a large bushy tail instead of a small bushy tail, it still largely looks like a rabbit. Regardless of a horn-like thing on its head, it still largely looks like a rabbit. If it doesn't matter what Beat largely looks like, then almost all monsters Fur Hire can be seen as mixtures of different animals:

  • Bravo has fur on its back and claws, which salamanders don't have
  • Dyna has a beast-like face, while manticores have human faces
  • Folgo also has a long, bushy tail, uncharacteristic of wolves
  • Helmer has hind legs and a snout, even though a mermaid only has tails and a human upper body
  • Filo has toe-less feet and wing-like ears
  • Sagitta has hooves and a prominent chest
  • Seal has individual fingers and toes, and a single horn(-like appendage) in the center of its forehead
  • Wiz has fingers, also a prominent chest, and way more tentacles than an octopus should

Keeping these in mind, either we need to completely get rid of the "origin creature" column on the page, as practically all of them should either be a long list of what different animals each monster Fur Hire consists of, or (save for Donpa, Recon, and Rafale) the repetition of "hybrid of various animals", which isn't helpful at all, OR it should say the creature that the monster Fur Hire in question resembles the most, in which case we can disregard Seal not having hooves, Helmer having legs, or Sagitta having breasts, and have them listed as they are now (not including future possible discussions about them), but then in Beat's case it also mostly resembles a rabbit, by virtue of its legs, face, and ears. Like, I get where you're coming from with the chimera thing, but either almost all of them are chimeras, or none of them should be described as such. SpecB (talkcontribs) 14:57, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

You're kinda stretching the boundaries when you state these "differences".
  • Bravo has hair
  • Dyna is simply more beastial
  • Folgo, wolves do have longer bushy tails
  • Helmer would be more of a Dagon
  • Filo is still a chick
  • Sagitta is wearing hoove-like stilettos
  • Seal appears to be more wolf than goat, yes, reminds me of Ranga from Slime
  • Wiz has tentacles so she could be an octopus or a squid, but does that really matter?
Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 15:26, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
So a salamander can have hair, a chick can have stumpy legs, a raven can wear hoof-like stilettos, and Wiz can have more than the expected number of tentacles, but Beat cannot have a larger-than-usual bushy tail or a horn-like heargear? If we accept all the others as being what they are currently listed as, then Beat being a rabbit isn't a stretch - it being a chimera because it has "horns" is what's stretching it. SpecB (talkcontribs) 15:55, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
Um what? Beat also has heterochromia. Sagitta could have only two front facing toes which would cause her to wear shoes that look like hooves. And Konami has humanized a number of animals in the past, ie X-Sabers and Gladiator Beasts. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 16:38, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
I know Beat has heterochromia, I added that trivia bit to its own page. And heterochromia is something not uncommon among rabbits. Sagitta having "two front facing toes which would cause her to wear shoes that look like hooves" still fits with what I'm saying, that perhaps all monsters Fur Hire are borrowing their main characteristics from a specific creature, and minor details are changed to make them look more unique and interesting. So despite hooves or hoof-like shoes, Sagitta is still based on a raven, and similarly, Beat would still be based on a rabbit, despite the horn-like thing on its head. SpecB (talkcontribs) 17:05, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
Um how does Sagitta go with what you're saying? Her shoes are not a part of her actual body. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 17:08, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
Well if we can assume that Sagitta is wearing hoof-like shoes despite ravens having three front-facing toes, then we could also assume Beat is wearing a horn-like head accessory, can we not? SpecB (talkcontribs) 17:24, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
What? No we wouldn't. You're stretching way past what's obvious at this point. Also there's an old saying with the word "assume". Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 17:37, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're the one who insists that Beat is an assortment of different animal parts (ie. a chimera) because it has one characteristic, a horn, that is not rabbit-like. Anything else you mentioned (bushy tail and heterochromic eyes) can be part of a rabbit. SpecB (talkcontribs) 17:44, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
Rabbits have small tails. Beat's is much larger than normal. Also he has the mantle. Found on the internet something called an Enfield. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 17:56, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
Beat's tail is larger, yes, but it's a bushy tail like that of a rabbit, is it not? Regardless of its size. And if you're talking about Enfields, those have fox heads, bird-like front legs, wings protruding from their arms/shoulders, and wolf legs. Sometimes their chest/torso area is that of a lion. None of this fits Beat, but least of all the head, which is clearly a rabbit's. SpecB (talkcontribs) 19:17, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
His tail is much larger than a rabbit's of his size and even foxes and wolves can have large bushy tails. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 19:21, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
If we're gonna be fussing over this in such detail that a rabbit can't have a large, bushy tail, only a small bushy tail, then I will argue that foxes and wolves have elongated tails, unlike Beat's tail. And this still doesn't explain the lack of wings in its arms, and it's rabbit head and ears. So the overall visage is still that of a rabbit, just like how Sagitta, overall, looks like a raven. SpecB (talkcontribs) 19:26, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Beat has wings on his back. They just simple look like a mantle when they are folded up. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 19:31, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
Enfields don't have their wings on their backs, however. Also, now it's you who's making assumptions, by saying "pretty sure Beat has wings". ;) I'm pretty sure that doesn't look anything like a pair of wings, but we could argue about that all day. Like I've said way above, we should be looking at the bigger picture, and list what animals/creatures the monsters Fur Hire are based on, regardless of deviations from those animals, as seen on almost all of them. And in that vein, Beat is still a rabbit in a coat. If we're gonna be looking at why Beat doesn't look like a rabbit, then we should be looking at while almost none of the other monsters Fur Hire look like what they are listed as, as I've already explained above. In the latter case, the entire "Origin" column should be removed. But if we want to keep that column, we need to have a consistent explanation for all monsters Fur Hire origins, which would mean we need to look at their overall appearance, and list those. In which case Beat is a rabbit just as much as Sagitta is a raven or Wiz is an octopus/squid. SpecB (talkcontribs) 19:55, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
His mantle clearly has feathers. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 20:00, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
Well it can't be that clear considering people previously thought those were quills. Plus it's one big sheet on Beat's back, and not two separate limbs. If you look at Beat's image, the "feathers" continue between its legs, behind its back. If those were feathers on folded wings, there would be a gap between them. Not only that, but then the "feathers" would be more organized, as feather structure is an important feature of wings. With ruffled feathers, a wing is useless. (PS. We were sliding way too much to the right so I brought our texts back to the left a bit, we should stay like this.) SpecB (talkcontribs) 20:16, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

I should step in, before another silly disagreement causes some great consequences. I asked people in Discord and they also say it's a rabbit, and I share their opinion. It's even in the name "beat", as in rabbit. Anyway,just because the monster has some extra decorations doesn't mean it isn't based on something else. Energy X 20:38, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

I'll hunt down mythology more for a bit to really determine it. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 20:42, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

Silent Paladin's Trivia

Thanks, bud. Malikishak91 (talkcontribs) 08:45, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

Just doing what's hopefully the best for the site, mate. :) SpecB (talkcontribs) 09:52, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

Pitifulheartles will revert those changes again. SmartestManAlive and I have reasoned with him many times but to no avail. He is too preoccupied with such incredible, not to mention fanciful claims that Silent Paladin is Silent Swordsman's and Silent Magician's daughter, and the duo are in some sort of a relationship. Malikishak91 (talkcontribs) 10:59, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

It was correct as it was. Please refer to fire the extension of this discussion. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 12:14, May 9, 2020 (UTC)
I have read the relevant parts on your Talk page as well as the Trivia's Talk page before trying to make an edit that keeps the visual, effect-related, and RPG-ish connections of the three monsters and only removes your claim that they are a family, in order to find a solution that works for everyone. There's really not much more to discuss. SpecB (talkcontribs) 17:44, May 9, 2020 (UTC)
There clearly is more to discuss since you left out the relevant familial part. Pitifulheartles (talkcontribs) 18:35, May 9, 2020 (UTC)
The developers want our money, that's why they designed such cards. Malikishak91 (talkcontribs) 00:52, May 10, 2020 (UTC)


Dear SpecB,

Thanks for your intervention on my talk page. I hate when people cannot discuss with me honestly and amicably.

Contractions are still correct, yes, and so I would be happy to accept the contractions as they are, given that this is a Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia and not a scientific journal. However, uncontractions are equally correct. The contraction edit was not the only one I made; I also made a bunch of grammatically necessary edits and edits for clarity, as well as getting rid of the awkward translation of "dropout boy". The issue is that all of my edits were undone at once.

Would you link me to the style guide for this Wikia?

I'm aware of the argumentum ad authoritum fallacy, however, I was hoping that it would be of use anyway. There is some truth to the argument, however, just no necessary truth.

When I see that someone does not want to discuss things reasonably and will not change his mind whatever, I give up on replying reasonably also and prefer to point people out for what they are.

Wishing you the best, Jonneyboy99 Jonneyboy99 (talkcontribs) 19:06, May 15, 2020 (UTC)

Hi! To be perfectly honest, as I was reading your recent and earlier comments, at one point you, too, ceased to discuss the topic amicably. While expressing annoyance or other negative emotions can, in some situations and on some levels, be beneficial, getting visibly irritated by your discussion partners and adopting a less courteous style is not the way to go. If the other party is honestly not seeing your point or is honestly disagreeing with you, then obviously there's no need to get angry, and if they are deliberately ignoring what you're bringing up, perhaps even trolling, then there's no reason to get mad, either. Just food for thought for the future. :)
It's been a while since I read the style guide and it may have been back during the Wikia times, before Fandom. I admit I can't find it right now, although generally it should pretty much be something like "use proper English" and that's it. :D
As for your edits being undone at once, a good strategy is to make different "types" of edits in separate sessions. For example if you're fixing the grammar and the content and the templates, it's for the best to do it in three edits. Or at least that's how I'd do it. SpecB (talkcontribs) 01:32, May 16, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did forget about cordiality as soon as it became apparent that these people were not interested in being proven wrong. It's difficult to not get mad at people like that, but there probably is not much use to it. I could better sooner alert an admin and refuse to engage with the malefactors.
Oh OK. Shame. It would be handy to have an official and comprehensive Fandom style guide (I guess this is no longer considered a Wikia then).
That's some good advice, thanks. Jonneyboy99 (talkcontribs) 02:34, May 16, 2020 (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+