Set Card Lists talk:Legacy of the Valiant (TCG-EN)

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Set Card Lists:Legacy of the Valiant (TCG-EN).
This page is for discussing how to improve the page. For general discussion and comments, use the general discussion forum. To ask about rulings or how cards work, use the ruling queries forum. To get help with building a Deck, use the Deck help forum. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Please try to Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming

Aren't we missing something?

Shouldn't the additional cards like Numbers 18 and 36 be added in the list as well? --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 07:50, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

They were confirmed by the OCG's official site to be their equivalent of a TCG WP; i.e. expect them to be in some Extra Pack esc product. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 08:51, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Full List

Why was the full list added? We don't normally add the full list until most of the TCG names of the cards are confirmed.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 14:54, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Firstly we know that their going to be in the set, so their no point in not pointing them in. And secondly not necessarily the case as you'll see with the first version of SHSP http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Set_Card_Lists:Shadow_Specters_(TCG-EN)?oldid=2549499 Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 15:08, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

The user who made the SHSP TCG page has relatively few edits on the site and did not know the normal procedures for when to add Set Card Lists for the TCG. The page wasn't deleted, but that doesn't mean our policies have changed. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 15:31, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Also, this makes it incredibly confusing to track which cards are confirmed in the TCG and which cards aren't. "They're going to be in the set anyway" is a terrible excuse, because if that were relevant, we'd create the TCG list as soon as the OCG one was confirmed.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 15:35, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

@ Golden, I don't argue, nor suggest that it was a change in policy, which I honestly can't find in the policy page tbh, but that fact that it's happened before and no one batted an eye lid make it appear as if it is an accepted practice, no? And Specters wasn't the only one, not counting JOTL as I was the one who made that page, but LTGY and CBLZ all started with a full list at whatever thine they were made and this discussion is not present on any talk page for them.

@Yami, I don't know why the list isn't made before any TCG, or very little, given how early Mobius was supposedly revealed, but I assume it is to do with that lack of info. Where as when we start getting things like the OP's and some other sources for the product info then it makes more sense to have the full list at the start and then adapt when necessary, especially when it is going to be edited anyway. And if we don't put the full list we could start to get sections like the above asking if cards aren't included because their not listed, fortunately in this instance they weren't and such info may not have been known at the time, but it saves the eventuality of it potentially happening and waiting space that could be used for more important things.Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 15:46, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

The issue at the start of the topic is a special case, as this is the first time we've had extra cards in the OCG, and your answer about them being OCG-only, BTW, is merely speculation (don't state it as irrefutable fact). I highly doubt there would be any other issues if we did not list the full card list on this page, and as such, I still stand by the argument that it is unnecessary, makes it more difficult to track changes, and falsely implies confirmation of certain cards. The cards are not confirmed in the TCG yet, so why are they listed? The information is already available on the JP list page.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 15:57, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Also note that most of the recent Set Card Lists are created by random people. When Deltaneos created the "Return of the Duelist" Set Card List page, he did not add the full list, only what was confirmed at the time. I would much rather follow the example of staff, rather than random editors who may or may not be following correct procedure.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 16:02, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

http://neoarkcradle.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=180827#p180827 Translation made of text on the official site, yeah not confirmed, try checking it out for yourself before accusing me of spreading idle speculation. And secondly my point still stands about you more or less being the only person with an issue with it. Even GK didn't say it wasn't aloud. If you look on every talk page you won't see a 'Should we have the full list' section even you must have been around long enough to have questioned it back then which begs the question why now? And what should we do when it happens and the admins don't say anything about it? if it is clearly aloud then why not do it, its not like on this list there is anything that hasn't been given with a source that the wiki staff/admins etc. have an issue with else they would have removed it. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 16:08, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I was wrong about the LVAL OCG world premieres. However, just because I'm the only one who has brought it up doesn't mean anything. It also doesn't mean much whether or not the admins consider the issue important enough to revert when someone does add the full list - it may not be important at all, but I'm raising a point of order that we should have a consistent manner of going about these things. I created the page, and I created it with only the confirmed cards added. It was you who then decided to be a busybody and add the full card list, which is a glorification of the recent compulsion we've had on this Wiki from certain members (not pointing any fingers, but a lot of this involves Numbers and Yu-Gi-Oh! ZEXAL information) of adding unnecessary information before it's confirmed. It's simply not necessary, and I'd like to suggest a policy to prevent random members from running rampant with it.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 16:20, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

1. I was one of the few people trying to argue against a lot of unconfirmed info being added to the Number, and associated pages, if you'd care to look at the talk pages and edit history for those.

2. I added them because from what I had seen from recent sets, as of becoming a more active editor thats how it was done.

3. And on the point of having a constant manner, we have for the past few sets its been done the same way, unless your dictionaries give a different definition of consistency, and literally no one has said anything about it until today. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 16:27, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying it was you who was a part of the spreading of unconfirmed information, however this issue is glorifying it. Recent sets have been added by random members, not staff, and I would argue that the one example I have of Deltaneos (a staff member) doing it differently (and IMO, logically and correctly) trumps that. I'm suggesting we create a consistent policy, as right now, there obviously isn't one. Anyway, I've heard enough from you and your repetitive points, I'd like to hear what the staff have to say about this and will raise it with them. At this point, I'd even suggest removing the page altogether rather than having false implications of confirmed information floating around.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 16:37, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

So, I'm spreading unconfirmed information by saying that cards that are in the set are going to be in the set and cards that are confirmed not to be aren't. It's not like I've gone and added Imports or any of the info that I, personally have put on their has a source attached to it is. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't turn round and say that I'm spreading Unconfirmed information when what I do edit I turn around and say 'here look at this' when necessary. NOTHING ON THIS PAGE RIGHT NOW DOESN'T HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF ACCURACY AS A MINIMUM, NAME I GRATE YOU IN A FAIR FEW CASE WILL BE CHANGED, PUT ANYONE LOOKING AT THE PAGE WILL KNOW THAT. I DON'T EDIT WITHOUT A SOURCE OR SOME FORM OF CONFIRMATION. ARE THEY GING TO BE INCLUDED YES, DO THEY DESERVE TO BE ON THE LIST YES. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 16:46, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean, when people's unconfirmed information is challenged on this Wiki, they resort to taking things personally and fly into a hissy fit, incessantly repeating the same points over and over in a childish manner, rather than trying to understand what the other person is trying to say.

Your point: Other people have been doing it the past few sets.

My argument: These people are random users, not staff. The example I've given of a staff member creating the page is different in that the page was created without the full list, and only of the information we had confirmed at the time, and as such, other people are wrong.

Your point: You're the only one who has brought it up.

My argument: What difference does that make? If I have a valid point, then it doesn't matter if I'm the only one bringing it up.

Your point: They will be added anyway, so they might as well be on the list.

My argument: What function does the TCG list serve then? As I see it, it's a way to track confirmed information on the TCG set. The way you've changed it, there's now no difference between it and the OCG set, so why have both? The way it is now, it also implies that the entire set is confirmed in the TCG, which it is not yet. I'm not saying it won't be, just that it is not yet and therefore, there is literally no reason to add these cards.

I think I've summed up my point fairly clearly. If you have nothing to add that isn't covered in the above points, please don't continue to repeat yourself. Also, behaving obnoxiously and childishly by adding caps lock doesn't help your case. It makes it more likely that the point will be ignored entirely.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 16:56, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

1. My point was not solely others have done, it it was that it had been done and litter lay no one other than your self has turned round and said anything about it. a fact that you conveniently left out might I add.

2. If no ones brought it up before it means that it is either not an issue or not big enough for anyone to give a damn other that you for some reason, hence why non of the admins have changed it, why GK didn't say earlier that it and to be changed, and why there have been no edit wars saying 'it's unconfirmed, yes it is, no it isn't'.

3. I used caps so that the message would be clearer, I am not spreading false information. If you don't like it, deal with it.

4. What your doing os trying to impose YOUR personal taste on the majority, but what ever, your just another random user like me, who's to say your opinion is better than mine, other than the many who have done nothing to argue either. I'm done this isn't worth my time, sitting here and reading some random idiots accusations against what I edit despite ALL info I place being sorted, or a reference made to a previous cited source. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 17:19, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Hallelujah. Now maybe we can actually get some decent discussion done without someone crying and repeating themselves endlessly.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 17:24, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Official policy is, and always has been, that only confirmed info gets posted on the wiki. Extrapolating the contents of the TCG release of a set from its OCG release is conjecture, even if there is no reason to think the contents will differ, and especially when the English names of cards aren't known yet. This is true regardless of whether it has been enforced on any particular page in the past; people tend to be lazy about policing this type of stuff and the more involved editors can't be everywhere at once. Or, basically: if unconfirmed info is posted, anyone can challenge it on the talk page or simply remove it outright, but there is no guarantee that it will actually happen. If you see unconfirmed info somewhere and want it removed, either mention it on the talk page or remove it yourself; you could try reporting it to an active editor, but there's no guarantee they'll actually be in a position to handle it.
This leads me to my next point: admins are no different from any other editor when it comes to content-related issues. Adminship is a purely maintenance role, and an admin has no more say in content disputes than any other editor. Admins are, however, expected to be familiar with the wiki guidelines and policies, so if an admin disagrees with you, you should consider whether they know something you don't (and if you're not sure, you should ask; there is no shame in asking to have something you don't understand explained to you =) ). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 02:35, November 29, 2013 (UTC)

As I thought. Thank you for clarifying, Dinoguy. I'll be moving the page back to its original form soon.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 02:37, November 29, 2013 (UTC)

lswarm Xyz??

http://www.pojo.com/yu-gi-oh/News/2013/konami-12-4.shtml

How legit are pojo outside of the forums, they list the lsawrm Xyz as Evilswarm Exciton Knight and I'm a little cautious about adding it because it's not a reference for most of the edits I've seen. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 21:37, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Update!!

http://pic.nwbbs.com/forum/201401/12/220714f4zj6ex8jwopw4o6.jpg

Cant tell if Rare/Ultra, bad light and a broken lamp. So have not added yet to be sure. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 14:25, January 12, 2014 (UTC)