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.

I managed to find several monsters with 'End' in their name: "Light End Dragon", "Dark End Dragon", "Thunder-End Dragon", "Chaos-End Master", "Cyber End Dragon", "Night's End Sorcerer", and "Destiny End Dragoon". If you look at their OCG Japanese name, they are more or less the same trait except the last one. But if compared with their TCG English, there isn't a trait in converting the name. If using the pattern of "Light End Dragon", then "Night's End Sorcerer" should be called "Night End Sorcerer"; same case in "Chaos-End Master". So I believed that all these cards and namings are not really related after all. The 'End' word is there to show 'extremeness', a word other than 'terminator', 'doom' & 'ultimate'. Using them to form a Deck might be fun, but putting them in relation due to the similarity in names is a bit over. You won't simply assume that Edward and Edmund must be brothers or relatives, right?--Furuzuki (talk • contribs) 15:14, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

I also think that deletion is the best option... It's not an archetype, having a word in common doesn't mean that it's an archetype because then, we should also have a page for Mouses with Key Mouse, Bone Mouse and Chu-Ske the Mouse Fighter ! Wilimut ^Talk_Mail Paris, 13:46, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

And Night's End Sorcerer is a bad example : the "end" is not here for "ultimate" or something like that. It's just here because he's the Sorcerer of the End of the Night (you might call it the twilight). So I agree with the deletion. HPZ - O.N.E. (talk • contribs) 12:14, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

I vote in favor of deletion. There is nothing archetypal about "End". There are many different variations of the "End"s, only a couple of which work together or could be considered archetypal. There is no direct support or mention for "End" cards. They are also widespread, such as "Thunder-End Dragon", "Light End Dragon" and "Chaos-End Master" (which is unassociated with Dragons in the first place). In my view, if there is no direct support, and nothing linking the cards together other than the word "End", it should not be an archetype. DemonGodAsura (talk • contribs) 19:00, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

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)

Plus, there is fourth monster - which is Machine rather than real dragon - "Cyber END Dragon", but it also has no line (-) at that name, therefore so far that there are only 4 monster with "End Dragon" in their names. While I still said my original line clearly and loudly, there are only 3 monsters with "-End Dragon" in their names, not more. --FredCat 19:05, May 25, 2011 (UTC)