Talk:Blue-Eyes Ultimate Dragon (manga)

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Blue-Eyes Ultimate Dragon (manga).
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

OCG DEF assumption

I don't think we should be assuming manga stats that aren't shown are in fact the stats of their OCG counterparts, like what was done with the DEF. At least not for manga originals, such as this one. I think it might be okay for cards that were made in the OCG and later added to the manga. As we know, cards tend to be modified as they are converted from one medium to the OCG. I think it's more useful to say that the DEF is not shown, than to default it to another medium. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:35, October 14, 2016 (UTC)

Card effects are modified once they are released, but cases of cards whose actual stats are changed upon release are extremely rare. I don't think you can find more than a handful of those cases amongst the mangas. I personally think it's good to add a manga monster's unknown stats, Type and/or Attribute once they are released, instead of leaving those blank. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 14:30, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

I see. Interesting point.

There's not many in the spin off series, as far as I know. GX had at least "Athena", "Koga" and, if we count Types, "Cyber Dinosaur". I haven't checked the others.

But the original series had a lot more. Leaving aside ~60 monsters introduced before Tribute Summons, that had their Levels changed, there are still at least 25 monsters, in the original manga, including 1 Token and 2 Trap Monsters that had their Level, ATK or DEF changed. I think there's roughly 265 monsters in that series that got released in the OCG as monsters, so just over 9% of them had stat changes. (I might need to double check those figures.)

But even if the figure was lower, I don't see why leaving the fields blank or as "???" is a bad thing. Are we not being more informative by letting the reader know if something wasn't disclosed? If they want to assume it's the same as the OCG, they can check the OCG page and will be conscious of the assumption. -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:02, October 16, 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I'd prefer to avoid assuming/guessing anything. I actually prefer leaving stuff blank if we don't know. I do like to have info, but I don't like to add info we don't have. (edit conflict) Becasita ^Pendulum (talk • contribs) 00:12, October 16, 2016 (UTC)