User talk:Rocket.knight.777
Number 9Edit
Thank you for an education guess, but we don't know if it's Machine or Alien, yes, there is a spaceship that is an Alien... --FredCat 01:52, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- Alien isn't a type, it's an archetype. I doubt that Number 9 is a Reptile, which is the Type of the Alien archetype. But Number 9 isn't a Reptile, if it isn't a Machine, the best option that is could be would be Fairy. But purely based on the look, the best option is Machine.
Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 12:16, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
RE: Tell Me You Are KiddingEdit
You should have asked the one who uploaded the image (File:Number6ChronomolyAtlanto-REDU-EN-OP.jpg). Anyhow, the image is from Konami
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 05:17, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Scroll down a bit on that webpage and its there. I don't change anything unless it is official. Look234 (talk • contribs) 05:19, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
Still, friends, forgive me for saying so, but the name is very stupid.I'm an avid OOPArts fan, and the old name packs more punch for me. But if it is offical, as I can see, I'll have to swallow my pride and suck it up. Where does the new name for these card come from? Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 05:25, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
- The most I can guess is "Chrono" for chronological and the best I can do for "moly" right now is Molybdenum. Wiki states "Molybdenum minerals have been known into prehistory" so it kinda fits with the theme. I know its weak but at least its a start. And yeah I liked the original name better as well. Not much we can do though. Look234 (talk • contribs) 05:38, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
- No need to get like that, I took it from the horse's mouth.
- "Now, ancient humans have acquired technology there’s no way they could have, and chronological anomalies have crept into the time stream, resulting in the Chronomoly monsters – monsters that should not exist, but somehow do." -Konami
- Blame Konami for their own inconsistencies. -.- Look234 (talk • contribs) 05:43, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
- No need to get like that, I took it from the horse's mouth.
- There have been a couple of case where their OP images end up having the wrong name. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 05:46, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
Or, it could just be an intern who is suffering from lack of coffee. Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 05:49, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. ^_^ Names will be changing quite a bit till we get more news on the set or better pictures. Look234 (talk • contribs) 05:53, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
Until then, I shall just back away calmly and decide if I want to stay pure in my fanfiction or go with the flow. Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 05:56, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
Lessons LearnedEdit
- Please bear with me here; there's a lot of ground to cover for me to properly explain myself.
- Rocket, it sounds to me like your position comes largely from a view that archetypes are just a special type of series. While this is an understandable position - and it is entirely correct for many archetypes - it doesn't actually work because of how Konami themselves have handled archetype support in various rulings (as Deltaneos pointed out above). Because of this, archetypes and series work much better and make much more sense if you view them as two separate but related things: they are both groups of cards which share some common bond, but an archetype's common bond is a gameplay mechanic (specifically, one or more support cards which list a particular string that archetype members must have in their Japanese names), while a series' common bond is a design theme of some type (such as being used by a particular character, or being derived from a particular story/legend/mythos/etc., or so on).
- When you view them in this way, you can see that an archetype may contain a series - and most archetypes are simply a series with one or more support cards - but also that a series can contain an archetype, an archetype can contain multiple series (and vice versa), and a series can contain other series (and an archetype can contain other archetypes). However, another conclusion is that every archetype has at least one series of cards at its core; this is usually the series that the archetype's support card(s) was intended to accompany.
- For example, look at one of the oldest archetypes in the game, the "Archfiends". This is a group of cards that all share a common theme of being demonic in nature, but there's a bit more here: there is also a smaller series in this group, the Chess Archfiends, that share the theme of being based on chess pieces (and the first "Archfiend" support card is actually a part of this series as well). While this series doesn't have any support cards of its own (that is, there are no cards that specifically support the Chess Archfiend series), it's still a distinct series in its own right, and we could probably justify giving it its own article.
- On the other hand, there are groups of cards that are definitely a series, but don't share any common string in their Japanese names. Consider for example the "rampaging" versions of the "Charmers" ("Avalanching Aussa", "Storming Wynn", "Raging Eria", and "Blazing Hiita"): these cards definitely form their own series, because they all have the common theme of being "evolved" forms of the original "Charmers", but they could never be an archetype because they don't have any common string in their names, so a hypothetical support card would have to name each of them individually. Further, the "Charmers" and their "evolved" series (the aforementioned "rampagers", the "Familiar-Possesseds", and the "Spiritual Arts") are all part of a larger series.
- For a similar example with archetypes, consider the "HEROes". This is an archetype with its own support cards, but it also has four subarchetypes ("Elemental HERO", "Destiny HERO", "Masked HERO", and "Vision HERO"), which again have their own individual support cards, and one subseries ("Evil HERO"). Even so, all of the subarchetypes and the subseries are also "HEROes", and they are all supported by "HERO" support cards.
- So, to sum up: you are entirely justified in thinking that it doesn't make sense to say that e.g. "Thought Ruler Archfiend" is a "Sphere" card, or that "Necroid Shaman" is a "roid". And when you understand the distinction that we draw between archetypes and series, and why we draw that distinction, and what the implications of the distinction are, you see that you're absolutely right, because the "Spheres" and "roids" aren't just archetypes, but they are also series (but! the archetype "Sphere" is different from the series "Sphere", as is the archetype versus the series "roid"). Therefore, "Thought Ruler Archfiend" isn't actually a "Sphere" monster, in the sense that it is not part of the "Sphere" series, although it is still part of the "Sphere" archetype, and the same with "Necroid Shaman" and the "roid" archetype and series. In fact, one thought on this that I have had for some time is that there's a very strong argument for documenting archetypes on their own articles, purely as a gameplay mechanic, and series on separate articles, as a thematic group. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 22:05, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
Utopia Ray V Material numberEdit
Of course that it precede version is "Number 39: Utopia", but we have to following what was writing on the source. Shriek site said 3 Level 5 monsters, not 4. I am sure that's just an easier way to Xyz Summon him (without using the special way to Overlaying on Number 39: Utopia), only to omitting the effect that required the precede version as it Xyz Material. --iFredCat 19:44, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- I'll go along with it, but I don't buy it. The best bet is that it's Utopia Ray that is Ranked Up. Why else would it the name be "Utopia Ray V"? If it were just Utopia, it would be "Utopia V" or something of the like. But, I would fight it. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 20:41, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
Episode 94Edit
- Answers you are looking for about Episode 94 is here. Just click the link and please mind not to use profanity. ---highly respect, Stark 19:22, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Edit WarEdit
Look like you won the battle. Cheese just took him down with a snipe rifle, just now. --iFredCat 22:23, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to start a war, he just was breaking the good vibes by claiming to be clean up when it wasn't needed. If some of that stuff didn't work someone else would have sid something when it was first posted right? I suggested he talk to people first, but he had to do things his way. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 22:27, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
A-heh, thanks I guess. I did step away though. Might be a while before we all fix the damage he left. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 22:35, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Damage? If you didn't notice, an admin himself deleted the part about Pegasus. You're the only one who's committing damage here. 64.62.201.14 (talk) 22:45, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
- What room? We're not in a room... 64.62.201.14 (talk) 22:50, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I did have a positive attitude. I explained to him the rules about irrelevant Trivia, and he refused to believe them. Even UltimateKuriboh deleted the trivia about Pegasus, yet he still continued to add it, and then he says I was doing damage. Yeah, right. 64.62.201.14 (talk) 22:58, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
- You two carry on. I'm done with this. The point was made long ago. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 23:11, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
IPs and TriviaEdit
Some people prefer not to make an account. Do not insult them like that. A username does not give you higher standing. As for the trivia, he is right - we're trying to tighten up on what gets put on trivia pages. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 17:37, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. Mine is that there's no reason not to take IPs seriously. Not every IP is a vandal or a troll. If they were, we just wouldn't allow them to edit at all. For trivia, the point is to only include likely references. We have to draw the line somewhere, or else every card with 3000 ATK is said to resemble BEWD. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 17:50, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Its really done on a case-by-case basis by users who wish to deal with it. Its hard to make a blanket statement. The line hast o be drawn somewhere, but where that line is can be ambiguous. I don't have the final say, the community does. When the new card table template is rolled out, much of the relevant trivia can be integrated into the card articles, so that will help. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 18:03, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
Not everything in trivia is speculation like you claim. For example we know certain monsters appear in some artworks. In this case, I'm inclined to agree with what the anon is saying. Shardsilver (talk • contribs) 18:09, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
AmendEdit
Yo Rocketknight, just wanted to apoligize for loosing my cool with you that one time I reverted you (the last part of the final sentence). No hard feelings right? Shardsilver (talk • contribs) 18:41, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
scripted duelsEdit
As far as I know, there have only been four scripted duels. Yugi vs. Yusei, Yusei vs. Akiza, Joey vs. Kaiba, the 5-way
I created the pages for both YCS Providence ones. The pages for the WCQ ones were already made, but I heavily edited the Kaiba one...although I think I made two pages by accident. Philiosophical-Psychological Informist Togekiss (talk • contribs) 02:58, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
Number 1Edit
Hi just wondering; how do you know it appears in episode 122? --slave(command) 20:36, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Number, regarding Number 80Edit
I wasn't snapping at you in particular, I was snapping at any other users who would try to further the discussion with speculation. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 20:14, November 10, 2013 (UTC)
Trying to clear up what I meanEdit
I agree with you about the 4 pages for the original Rio & Reginald & NAsch/Reginald and Merag/Rio, I merely mean that I am not sure who these 4 characters should be listed in terms of page name:
Reginald Kastle (original)
Reginald Kastle
Nasch
Rio Kastle (original)
Rio Kastle
Merag
Should the current pages Reginald Kastle and Rio Kastle be renamed to Nash and Merag respectively as we now know those are their real names as they "inherited" the other name from their descendants whom they possesed, or do they stay as Reginald Kastle and Rio Kastle as that is what they have been know as for most of the show - I mean Bandit Keith's page is Keith Howard as that is his real name despite him almost always being called Bandit Keith;
I know this is an old discussion but I believe it becomes relevant again as now we know Merag and Nasch are their real name not just the name of their earlier and later "incarnations"...
I mean to fit in with other characters on the wiki I would prefer them be renamed to Merag and Nasch, but most people would assumably search for Rio (and Reginald (or rather Shark - but that is already handled)) which then I would suggest should redirect straight to Merag and Nasch, but with both of them have at the top of the article the whole ""Reginald"/"Rio" redirects here. For the child of Mr. & Mrs. Kastle, see "Rio Kastle (original)"/"Reginald Kastle (original)"."
Mind you I wouldn't be surprised if people don't want to rename them as Merag and Nasch as they haven't been know (for viewers) as that as long as Reginald/Rio. Oh well...
That is probably still somewhat confusing but it's a bit more detailed >.> --slave(command•works) 09:00, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
No no thank you, I just am a bit ...frustrated (didn't/don't mean to take it out on you either!), thank you though :) I didn't mean to ruin your piece either, I just though that what I had typed out, although very long winded tried to cover what everyone was saying so we could have a bit more formal discussion XD --slave(command•works) 05:43, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
Indeed
Although at this point I'm confused what he even wants. my large piece was a lot about em trying to work out what others wanted XD
Like at this point I wonder if they know what they are arguing? XD --slave(command•works) 05:52, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
"original Shark and Rio, and Shark/Nasch and Rio/Merag - "Thought so just the way the car crash was referenced... anyhow that was an aside; Ill do the rest of the discussion on the page =) --slave(command•works) 06:25, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
Message from TheJorgon23Edit
the number base belong to Yuma, so the cards are no longer the chaos, the number of the sealed c101 form is precisely the number 101TheJorgon23 (talk • contribs) 20:53, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
Category talk:Anime cardsEdit
Hi. I just gave my comment regarding the anime card article split and moved this talk page to the forum. You can follow the discussion in the new link here: Forum:Why split up the cards?. Blackwings0605 (talk) 17:09, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
RE:ResponseEdit
Well, like I said, the Power Rangers wiki links were literally in the same sentence, so it's not unreasonable to expect you to copy/paste their format instead of the urls. For future reference, when linking to another Wiki, it's in this format:
[[w:c:WikiName:Article|blank]]
"WikiName" is replaced by the name of the Wiki as presented in its url (powerrangers.wikia.com --> powerrangers, yugioh.wikia.com --> yugioh), "Article" is replaced by the name of the article on that Wiki, and "blank" is for the word(s) you want the link to be embedded in. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 20:58, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
- Well, unless I'm missing something, you used VisualEditor to edit the trivia for "Triamid Fortress", but didn't do so for the other 2 Field Spells or the responses you left on my Talk Page. So now I'm actually interested in what you did differently in your edits to not have them attributed to VisualEditor, since that hasn't happened in consecutive edits you've made in the past. As far as I know, VisualEditor is the only editing method that doesn't involve "viewing the source".
- On the unrelated note of what makes things difficult for the "average user," I delicately say that we each have different ideas of what they are. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 01:21, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, all I got out of that is that you tried to use the VisualEditor excuse, and when that was found to be false, you continue with the "lazy" excuse. You're not on any high ground here. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 16:37, September 12, 2016 (UTC)