Talk:-End Dragons

Deletion

I fully support deletion. Not everything with identical wording needs to be an archetype or family. This is BS. Does anyone have any reason that this should stay? Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 23:54, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

I also vote on deletion, since each cards are unrelated to each other, except for first three (Light/Dark relates) and are absolute separate. Thunder-End Dragon has no relation with Light/Dark -Ends, since it's base on Lightning as well as Exceed. It's not like Light/Dark are parents of Thunder, so screw this article - it should begone. --FredCat 00:04, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Have we decided to keep (or not keep) the 'family' or 'series' idea? -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 00:59, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

The only thing the wikia really needs in terms of organizing cards that only have relations via the TCG and OCG would be, frankly, to stick within the bounds clearly set by cards' own effects. The Archetype page does a good job of laying out how cards don't always fit together just by name; at times artistic license, or manga/anime concerns, drive the consideration of a card being in an Archetype. (I for one find it quite troublesome to teach new players about the idea of an Archetype then see them come on here and watch them think that "Thousand Knives" works with monsters associated with "Dark Magician", so the artistic license part of the Archetype page is not without its problems.)

At the end of the day, there is no card effect bounding together the cards that include "-End" in their name. Ergo, there should likely be no page for them, plain and simple.

Falzar's comments regarding the "family" term would likely be of great use - invoking "Archetype" as a term exclusively in use for a group that shares a name component bound by a card effect (like B.E.S.) would be fine, and "Family" could work for relations that are much less concrete, like the artistic relation DM has with many other Spellcasters. EDavidR (talk • contribs) 06:44, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if a counterpart(s) is released for Thunder-End Dragon we could make these cards an archetype but for now I think we should delete it.

Keep it

I vote it should stay. I mean what else should we call this Archetype? Garchomp87 (talk • contribs) 05:49, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the argument the opposition is making - that there's no Archetype here at all. EDavidR (talk • contribs) 06:45, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Exact what EDavidR is saying, "-End" is just a damn name for cards, not family name. There are only 3 monsters with "-End Dragon" in their names, not more. If there are more cards with "-End Dragon" releasing, then this can be recreated, but for now - it serves no purposes. --FredCat 09:37, May 23, 2011 (UTC)