Set Card Lists talk:Pendulum Evolution (TCG-EN)

From Yugipedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Set Card Lists:Pendulum Evolution (TCG-EN).

Please try to

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • Be welcoming

Deletion[edit]

Photon, I understand your reasons. But I think it is important to, somehow, point that the cards "Astrograph Sorcerer", "Chronograph Sorcerer" and "Startime Magician" will be in the pack, despite we not knowing their English names. We have articles on them, people would look at the image of the booster and wonder what cards are those; we can give them that information. Regarding the core sets, no, we suspect they'll be equal; they always were, on those 80 slots; but nothing more than that is a guarantee. So, your position is that we should not facilitate passing confirmed info to other people? Becasita Pendulum (talkcontribs) 19:34, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

And what's the point of having a policy of confirmed names only if you're just going to throw it away on a whim? Or am I completely justified in going over to the MACR list and doing the exact same thing, for the exact same reason? PhotonLegion95 (talkcontribs) 19:54, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
Link to the policy, please, in case it's a written policy. In any case, I don't mind suggesting a change in a certain policy if I think we only benefit from such change.
Also, I don't think this is comparable to the MACR (and other core sets) situation. If it were by me, we'd only list cards that we know would be there. For instance, do we have any proof (any official proof from the TCG side of things) that MACR-EN011 will be a "Predaplant" monster? If not, then don't list. That'd be my way to go. Becasita Pendulum (talkcontribs) 21:34, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
Love it when people show their lack of understanding of how the franchise works to create an argument. What you're suggesting about core sets is redundant because of how they work. That's a fact.
And, can you really say, only list it if it's from an Official Source when you're actively ignoring Official Sources currently? Because the exact same arguments, regarding consistency, is going to be had. PhotonLegion95 (talkcontribs) 09:06, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with knowing how the franchise works. The core cards of a core set are always the same. I know that. They have always been since Soul of the Duelist. However, my approach would be we'd list what we get. That'd be my criteria. Simple and concise.
Yes, I decided to wait this time, regarding the name for "Supreme King Dragon Zarc" due to what had happened previously. It was an opinion; people had the right to refute. No one did.
Also, the three cards that were on this list here, are mentioned on the article page as the cover cards. Are you fine with that? Becasita Pendulum (talkcontribs) 11:19, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
Whether someone refutes it is irrelevant. The point you seem to have missed is that you cannot argue that things be left until they are official, which listing a name before one is revealed is actually going against, and ignore official information when it is revealed, as you are doing.
No, they should be removed as well. No different to the list, TCG product = TCG name. If we don't have one, don't use it, as has been done for a hella of a time now. PhotonLegion95 (talkcontribs) 15:11, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
Not having an official name is not justification for not listing something, so long as we clear the name is unofficial. Those three cards are confirmed to be in that TCG pack by virtue of being on the pack cover image. They should be listed. The Zarc argument does not make sense here. Its not confirmed in any capacity that Zarc will be in TCG MACR (even though it obviously will be). The name change discussion doesn't have any real bearing on this. — This unsigned comment was made by Cheesedude (talkcontribs)
Zarc isn't being used as an argument for or against listing the cards. It was being used as an example of why I don't think Bec should be using "official" as an argument. Not sure how much clearer my statements could have made that.PhotonLegion95 (talkcontribs) 18:09, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
There is no blanket policy. There can't be when the situations are not applicable to each other. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 18:26, March 1, 2017 (UTC)