Forum:Archetype Sub-Categories
| Forums: | Index → Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki Community Discussion → Archetype Sub-Categories Please sign your comments with ~~~~. See Help:Signatures and Help:Talk pages for further information. | Post |
I propose to add subcategories to archetypes that use more than the regular normal and special summon aka Ritual/Fusion/Synchro/Xyz/Pendulum/Link as their bosses. We can also debate about whether swarming archetypes like Mecha Phantom Beast should be considered a link archetype. What do you guys think? BlazeWu (talk • contribs) 02:31, November 21, 2017 (UTC)
- All I have to say is, please review the definitions of archetype and series first (as defined on this wiki), before using those terms casually like this. And this seems to be delving into the "opinions" side of things, in which case it should be documented on user pages and forum pages, but not as a main article. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 05:07, November 21, 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, then I will clearly define the subcategory: An archetype (same defintion as the wiki) that have a Ritual/Fusion/Synchro/Xyz/Pendulum/Link monster in its members, depending on subcategory. Archetypes like D/D/D who have multiple Ritual/Extra Deck monsters will fall under all that consist under, so HERO will be categorized as Fusion-based archetype and Link-based archetype, the actual name of the subcategory can be debatable. I wish to fight for it becoming part of the main pages as that's how such a system help the players most. BlazeWu (talk • contribs) 06:05, November 21, 2017 (UTC)
- TBH I was also thinking of dividing archseries by "related" Summoning methods. However, I am aware it wouldn't be exactly as Blaze proposed it. For example, it would make no sense to define "Link-based" any archetype released before the VRAINS era. So I support the defining factor being having an explicit member (or a related card clearly supposed to be the boss) beloging to the card type in question. In this case, "D/D" wouldn't be a Ritual archetype because they have no Ritual Monsters :P --XBrain130™「
Ｘ ブレーン１３０」 13:56, November 21, 2017 (UTC)
- TBH I was also thinking of dividing archseries by "related" Summoning methods. However, I am aware it wouldn't be exactly as Blaze proposed it. For example, it would make no sense to define "Link-based" any archetype released before the VRAINS era. So I support the defining factor being having an explicit member (or a related card clearly supposed to be the boss) beloging to the card type in question. In this case, "D/D" wouldn't be a Ritual archetype because they have no Ritual Monsters :P --XBrain130™「
I think with the current definition in mind, the idea can be implemented. So what name you guys want to give the sub-categories? XXX-based archetype or XXX archetype or something else entirely? BlazeWu (talk • contribs) 22:38, November 23, 2017 (UTC)
- How about "Archetypes with a Ritual/Fusion/Synchro/Xyz/Pendulum/Link monster"? If I hear nothing further within the next couple of days, I would start making the categories. BlazeWu (talk • contribs) 08:35, November 27, 2017 (UTC)
- A category tag of "archetypes with x monster(s)" sounds fine. We'd just need to be careful not to suggest that having an x monster makes it an x-based deck: e.g. "Worm" is not fusion-based, despite having a fusion monster ("Worm Zero"), as nothing in the archetype supports fusion summoning, etc. Regards, GoldenDragonRider (talk • contribs) 08:50, November 27, 2017 (UTC)
I have done up the ritual Category:Archetypes with Ritual Monster(s) . Any suggestions or improvements before I continue with the rest? Given the strict definition, I have excluded Red-Eyes (Lord of the Red) and Eyes-Restrict (Relinquished) out of the category. BlazeWu (talk • contribs) 08:50, December 28, 2017 (UTC)
