Forum:Archetype Classification

Ok, I've gone around many of the Archetype pages and noticed that several of them consist of only a small group of monsters with similarities between them, such as the Ishtar Fairy group, the DNA family, and the various LV groups out there. These cards are classified as Archetypes, but have little in common other than a name or similar appearance/relation to each other. They have no external support designed for them and make it difficult for decks to be built around them.

I think we should classify card groups that are like this (small numbers, no outside support, etc.) should be classified differently from Archetypes; I believe simply calling them a "Family" of cards works better as a classification.

What do you all think? --火星 WagesWar 18:15, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this recently, here. We never really decided on a course of action, and the thread died. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 01:29, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Then I would appreciate bringing the subject back into discussion. --火星 WagesWar 03:08, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

I think that reclassifying the smaller card groups as families, instead of archtypes is a good idea and may actually help to alleviate any confusion as to what an archtype actually is. So many of my local players are having a hard time making this distinction, and having someone spell out the difference once and for all would defintiely make my job easier when introducing new players to the more advanced concepts of the game. Macroman2011 (talk • contribs) 15:43, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of reclassifying some groups into families. Really the LV Monsters are one Archetype in and of themselves. Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV8 and Armed Dragon LV5 should be considered as two cards of the same Archetype. The Armed Dragons page (as a reference) could be a "Family" page that can include Dark Armed Dragon because it would pertain to the Family but not the LV archetype. The pages (I believe) shouldn't be completely removed from the Archetype page, just indented to show that they are a Subset of the Group. For example, Armed Dragons as a subset of LV along with Horus. If the Family is consisting of more than one archetype (such as Armed Dragons having the "DARK Counterpart" Dark Armed Dragon) then it is only listed once. OR it is listed below each, however there is only one link (the other is text only) and that link is below the most common Archetype. (For the "Armed Dragons", this would be LV. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 14:56, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Article

Moved from talk page 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 03:14, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

The Family page was created with this forum in mind. Please give opinions there about how you feel about this classification; should we adopt it or drop it?--火星 WagesWar 03:06, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think what's there so far is good. I don't know that world "family" is the best term to use, but that can always be changed. I'm in favor of keeping the page. It already exists, and the consensus was that something in this vein was needed. Now that it exists, we may as well as tackle the issue now, rather than later. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 03:28, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind keeping it either, however, there should be a few things we need to agree on first.

Such as, should we add the category into the Card Table (like what's been done with the Archetypes) or if we should have a list, like on Card Evolutions.

and that some classifications for 'Family' (such as related appearance) coincide with the lists at Card Evolutions. What specifications should we follow to determine what goes where. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:34, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It needs to be integrated into the cardtable and then have bot runs (hears Dinoguy groan) done to change archetype to family for certain groups. I do not think that card evolution and family have to mutually exclusive, personally. Is it agreed that the existence of support cards is what will separate archetype from family? Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 03:38, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

That was the feature that initially caused me to bring up the subject, yes. --火星 WagesWar 03:42, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I personally am still in favor of "group", but "family" is good too (and the two could be used in conjunction, actually). I think the most obvious family-archetype relation would be that all archetypes are families, but not all families are archetypes... I would also suggest that all card evolution lines and storylines would be families, as well.

@Cheesedude: Bot runs are no trouble (they aren't even particularly tedious, since once I have the list of pages to be updated and the list of replaces, I can literally set it and forget it); I would just need a clear list of changes to be made. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 04:33, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'll get right on that, in the morning.--火星 WagesWar 06:20, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

How would we use family and group in conjunction? Not sure what you mean. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 15:36, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how "family" is ultimately defined; if it's used to describe groups of cards that are clearly related (as opposed to groups of cards that just have incidental similarities), it automatically has a narrower definition than my proposal for "group" (any assemblage of cards sharing some similarity or characteristic). Thus the overall relationship between the terms would be "group" --> "family" --> "archetype" (where the scope of a term is entirely encompassed by the scope of the term to its immediate left). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 17:30, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fairly good way to help define the cards in general. So, would a good example be "Meklord" (family) --> "Meklord Emperor" (Archetype)? I think there's no real distinction to be made between "Family" and "Group", the two terms could be interchangeable.

That's actually a bad example. There are specific support cards for all "Meklords" and some that only work on "Meklord Emperors". So they're both archetypes. I believe those pages currently use the term "sub-archetype" to describe "Meklord Emperors", "Meklord Astro", etc. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 23:27, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

What would you classify Metal counterpart, Match Winner, Inpachis, Four Elements, Jar, DNA?

I would have them as Group, Group, can by Group or Family, Group, can by Group or Family, can by Group or Family. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 00:41, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of using the term "Group". The fellings based on such a term do not have the same mental effect as saying "Family". This encompasses all uses of the terms. I would say the "Jar Family". I would say the "DNA Family", the "Match Winner Family", the "Inpachis Family", ect... The term "Group" does not signafy relation between the subjects. While the Metal Counterparts have their own page and also have a clear distinction between each monster and Metalmorph, aside the origional monster and the metal, there is no relation between those monsters and other Metal monsters. This is the example that would be conflicting. There is no image between the monsters to relate them aside the metal appearance. The cards do not seem to have a "Family" feel and "Group" would be the better term, however I feel that "Family" would apply to more of these psudo-archtypes and I think it would be for the best if we only used one term. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 06:01, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Archetype relation

I thought I'd bring this up here, seems pretty relevant. What qualifies as "archrelated"? At this point, many pages seem to classify it as "cards that appeared on another card's artwork with the card in question". For example, "Ojama Yellow" is currently classified as being related to the "Mokey Mokey" archetype as both cards appeared on the artwork of "The League of Uniform Nomenclature". I'll be blunt, does anyone else think that's BS? Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 15:36, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

We discussed this to a limited extent back in January, but didn't really end up with a definitive definition (there's also a little bit of discussion from June last year). Searching around the wiki, I believe more and more that no one who is currently active really knows what the original intentions for "archrelated" actually were.

For the particular example you've listed, I reiterate my previous position that it's utter and complete nonsense. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 17:46, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

and Talk:Kagemusha of the Blue Flame. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 00:41, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Just because they appear on the same card doesn't make them related (although this is often the case).BobaFett2 (talk)

I've been thinking about this a lot.The issue is a bit more complicated. I'm going to give two examples, both with the same rationale for why they qualify as archrelated - and only one that I agree with. "Spirit Caller" is not related to "Skull Servants" just because "Skull Servant" appears on the artwork of "Spirit Caller". "Fox Fire" IS related to "Charmers" because it appears in the artwork of "Hiita the Fire Charmer" and her derivatives. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 03:17, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, "Fox Fire" is Hiita's familiar, giving a solid reason for it to be archrelated. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 09:26, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

While "Spirit Caller" is working for general level 3 or lower Normal Monsters, Dino got this idea correct. --FredCat 09:50, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

I realize that all that, but the thing is that it's essentially the same reason. It may be a better fit for card storylines and trivia pages than archrelated. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 15:11, April 21, 2011 (UTC)