Forum:Archetypes, Series, and Support

A continuation of Forum:Archetype definition (again), this topic is to summarize and simplify what went on in that topic, to settle a few loose ends, and to make propositions or additions as needed.

Archetype

An archetype is a group of cards with the following characteristics:

1. A word or string of words in their Japanese card names.

2. At least 1 support card that specifically refers to this word or string of text.

Examples of archetypes: Agent, Six Samurai, Gladiator Beast

Examples of archetype support: Master Hyperion, Six Samurai United, Gladiator Proving Ground

Archetype Related

Archetype related (aka archrelated) refers to cards with at least one of the following characteristics:

1. Supports an individual member of an archetype, as opposed to the archetype as a whole.

Example: "Neos Spiral Force" is archrelated to the "Neos" and "Elemental HERO" archetypes, because "Elemental HERO Neos" is a member of both archetypes.

2. Is used by the archetype to gain extra effects, but does not itself provide support based on the archetype's name.

Example: "The Agent of Miracles - Jupiter" gains the ability to Special Summon a banished Fairy-Type monster while "The Sanctuary in the Sky" is face-up on the field, but "The Sanctuary in the Sky" does not mention "Agent" monsters in its text.

3. Is mentioned in flavor text.

Example: "Mad Lobster" is related to "Dark World" since the lore of "Mad Lobster" mentions "Dark World".

4. Retooled support. Some cards are support cards for an archetype in the anime or manga, but are retooled not to be upon release.

Example: "Heroic Chance" is related to "Heroic Challenger" because its anime effect supports it, though its real world effect does not.

Series

A series is a group of cards with the following characteristics:

1. A word or string of text in their Japanese card names. This name must not be overly generic, as is the case with "Clown" and "Mummy".

2. Do not have support cards that specifically refers to this word or string of words.

3. Is made up of at least 3 members.

Examples of series: Beetron, Monarch, Different Dimension

Thoughts, Opinions, Suggestions

Just wanted to get this put down somewhere neatly. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 21:55, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Added two more examples for series. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 00:11, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

We agreed that a series is not defined by a string in card names, but rather by a theme: for example, even if they had no support, "Cat" and "Dog" would still be series because they're both groups of themed cards used by Cathy and Dog-chan (respectively) in the ZEXAL anime (this also means even generic terms can be used to name a series, as long as there's a definite theme). Did we change this or something?

I'm also quite leery of adding a third tier to this; it gets complicated enough in spots with just two, and if my above comment is on the mark, virtually any distinction between "series" and "coterie" would disappear. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 06:46, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I may have missed things, so where was that stated? Because if we don't look at names at all, we get things like Ishtar Fairy. Is it my use of the word "generic" that you're objecting to? I lamented using it, but if we don't put something we'll get things like Clown and Labyrinth. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 16:19, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to look around and see if I can find where it was discussed; I can't remember off-hand.

Based on the comments on the talk page, I don't think Ishtar Fairy would be a series, even with my above definition; "cards used by X" by itself doesn't count as a theme for a group of cards, and it doesn't sound like Ishtar's cards had any common thread other than that. The same goes for Clown and Labyrinth, though if a character was shown using a group of Clown or Labyrinth cards that had a common theme (but without any support cards that would make it an archetype), those cards (and only those cards) would be a valid "Clown"/"Labyrinth" series. Yes, this does mean we could end up with two or more unrelated series all sharing one "best" name; I'm not entirely sure how we might handle such a case, though I don't think we'd document them all on one page). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 17:31, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Clown - Tryston. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 20:30, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I had a feeling there may have been more discussion somewhere, as that one ended a bit abruptly (using series wasn't even fully agreed upon). But a name in common seems like an easy thing to go with, as it's more concrete than "theme", and most of the series pages already go based on it. The few that don't almost all have significant plot importance instead, which is why I think they could be reclassified that way. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 17:51, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult. In some cases, the name can be an important aspect of a series. Take "Monarch", for example. Their Japanese name translates to "Emperor" Many cards can be translated and have "Emperor" in their names ("Number 39: Utopia", the Sacred Beasts, etc). But we don't consider any of them to be "Monarchs". Every single card we do categorize as a "Monarch" shares a common string of characters in the Japanese name.

This one actually one of the reasons I initially opposed categorizing an archetype by support. Obviously, I changed my mind, but still. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 20:30, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, there's been discussion all over the place: in the forum, on user talk pages, on article talk pages... (and it's been happening off-and-on for years; it's really only recently that any of us sat down and more-or-less systematically worked through all the relevant issues, and even that was basically stop-and-go, accounting for the discussion fragmentation).

Generally, a series does have a common name, but there are cases where a series' members have nothing in common name-wise, in terms of a specific string in their Japanese name (there are several other examples linked from {{Six Attributes}}). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 20:19, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

No one seems on board for adding a third option, so I'll just go ahead and remove that. Dinoguy, since you've been privy to the multiple discussions all over the place, please reword the series section. I've been cleaning up the series pages for 2 months, and had no idea a decision was made to base it on "theme". On that note, please comment on Talk:Mummy on whether or not it is "themey" enough for the series club. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 21:04, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

There are some relevant notes on Forum:Page Format Reference#Archetypes and series (though that is a bit out-of-date). I'll try to remember to start listing other discussions/documentation here as I run across/remember them, then when we have a reasonably complete list, I'll skim through everything and try to get this completely and comprehensively up-to-date. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 07:29, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Rule of Three

I made a passing comment on a talk page about requiring at least 3 members before a series page gets made. Fredcat jumped at the opportunity to use my suggestion to have the ZW page deleted but then seems to have changed his mind. Falzar is supportive of it, since he deleted the ZW page. How about you guys? Hopefully more people will give their input on this than just us three. :/--Golden Key (talk • contribs) 21:04, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that rule. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 21:58, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Just to document it here, we discussed the rule of three much more thoroughly on Talk:Grepher#Not quite a series. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 07:29, March 31, 2012 (UTC)