Talk:Odd-Eyes Dragon

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Odd-Eyes Dragon.
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

I know I shouldn't say this here...but who else is calling this card to have 2500 ATK? Sanokal K-T (talk • contribs) 21:22, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

That is speculation. Especially since we do not know if this is Yuya's ace or not (it more then likely is not, since it has no resemblance to the dragon in the trailer). And next time, please put stuff like this in the form of a forum. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 21:54, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

ATK Points

We shouldn't speculate that it has 2500 ATK points since it isn't confirmed. --StephenWalker97 (talk • contribs) 12:37, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Confirming this. Until a link is provided. It stays at ???. --DysonSlinky (talk • contribs) 13:03, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

By that logic nothing should be added to episode pages by people who have seen the episode, because some users haven't seen it. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 14:11, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to get into an argument or this edit war here but unless you can show that this card has 2500 ATK by posting a picture in the Gallery or something, you cannot prove your point since you cannot use speculation. If you can prove that this card has 2500 ATK points I will accept it. --StephenWalker97 (talk • contribs) 14:18, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

But it wasn't speculation. It was fact, the existence of a link at that time meant jack all, especially when multiple users, not including you pair might I add, actually saw it. Expecting a link on everything is a little ridiculous. For example, Are you going to go undo the edits on eo145 of zeal? theres no link there for anything posted. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 14:32, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Image--X-Metaman (talk • contribs) 14:20, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

That link shows it as 25. Why are we assuming it means 2500? it could be 2550 or 2510 for all we know. --DysonSlinky (talk • contribs) 15:29, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

And now your trolling. That and its clearly a 0 after the 5, so unless you want to say its attack is 250X... Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 16:02, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You can clearly see a digit after it, but the pack is covering too much to flat out assume its a 0. Anything else? --DysonSlinky (talk • contribs) 16:56, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

So, you want to argue that the curved number is going to be a 6, 8 or 9? Yeah, trolling. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 17:13, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Aw, heck, I didn't start this, did I?

But moving on, would it be acceptable to have the ATK as 25?? for now, or would that be silly? I'm just looking for a nice middle ground here. Sanokal K-T (talk • contribs) 19:15, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

I believe someone suggest the same on the pink hippo card that Yuya uses, and one of the admins responded saying that they cant as it messes with the formatting. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 19:18, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Inserting the ATK as "2500" is not unreasonable. Only old cards like "Dark Chimera", "Barox", "Reaper of the Cards", etc. have a wonky ATK/DEF value. The only and recent exception to this has been "Number S39: Utopia ONE". Don't get all worked up over this. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 04:39, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

I wasnt necessarily talking about 2510, 2590, or wonky stuff like that, but stuff Konami still does, like 2550. There isnt enough of the third digit shown to determine if its a 5 or a 0. --DysonSlinky (talk • contribs) 14:38, March 10, 2014 (UTC)