Talk:Card evolutions

From Yugipedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Card evolutions.

Please try to

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • Be welcoming

Do we have a page for upgraded monsters? I saw that they were mentioned here.--DarkMastero 03:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

how about we change the whole page to "Retrained/Upgraded" and add a second section? 71.168.2.60 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Since Jinzo - Returner's stats differ from those of Jinzo 7 (which is significant due to Machine Duplication's restriction), should it still count as a retrained version? --Crab Helmet 06:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gearfried[edit]

Would Evoltector Chevalier->Gearfried the Iron Knight->Gearfried the Swordmaster->Phoenix Gearfried count or should Chevalier just vanish?

Sad Stories and Bad End[edit]

I think that the line goes "Bad End Queen Dragon" - "Sad Story - Unshocking Truth" - "Sad Story - Sorrowful Memories" - "Sad Story - Dreadful Day".~MEOW~ Might of the BIRD Empire~~ 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gradius[edit]

Would Victory Viper XX03 count as a upgraded version of Gradius? considering they are suppoesed to be the same ship, Vic Viper.

Machine Emperors/Imperial Soldiers[edit]

Should they go in the Downgraded Cards section?--絶望 (talkcontribs) 01:25, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't downgrades, the Machine Imperial Soldiers are separate monsters from the Machine Emperors. The former are minions for the latter. By your logic a soldier is a downgraded version of a king.

restrict to idiol NO!![edit]

relinquished is not a transformation of thousnd eyes restrict ITS A FUSION MONSTER FROM SEASON 1! come on im sorry but plz get this right —This unsigned comment was made by 67.182.9.80 (talkcontribs) 06:45, 15 November 2012‎ (UTC)

You're right, but that's just say that Relinquished changed into Thousand-Eyes Restrict as the Fusion Effect "changed" him from one look into the other look. It's treated as transformation. --iFredCat 10:24, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Xyz counterparts[edit]

I don't think "Giant Soldier of Steel" is considered a retrained version of "Giant Soldier of Stone", since the monster depicted looks different. If I was to call it something, it'd be some sort of Xyz counterpart. It, "Legendary Magician of Dark", "Legendary Dragon of White" and "Gaia Dragon, the Thunder Charger" are based on "Giant Soldier of Stone", "Dark Magician", "Blue-Eyes White Dragon" and "Gaia the Dragon Champion", having the same ATK, DEF, Level/Rank value, Type and Attribute and a similar, but not identical monster in the artwork. "Magi Magi ☆ Magician Gal" would not be one, as it has different stats and the artwork was intended to be "Dark Magician Girl", not a similar looking monster. -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:53, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Warrior of Zera[edit]

I made an edit regarding Warrior of Zera. Warrior of Zera has three paths, much like other cards have multiple versions. (Warrior Dai Grepher) for example. Anyway, before the edit, it was displayed as;

Indicating that Zera evolved from Darklord Zerato to Mazera DeVille to Zera the Mant. This is not the case, so I split it to display as;

Some might think that Darklord Zerato is merely a Dark Counterpart to Archlord Zerato, however it seems to be generally accepted that Zera, after becoming an Archlord, became corrupted and joined (or formed) the Darklords. Which is why I kept it displayed as Archlord ZeratoDarklord Zerato instead of as

Archlord Zerato/Darklord Zerato. However, as Mazera Deville and Zera the Mant seem to be the first (and only) stages of the other two paths, someone might decide on slashing it with Zeradias, Herald of Heaven. (much like how for Warrior Dai Grepher; Lightray Grepher, Dark Grepher, & Dark Lucius LV4 were slashed as a branching path.) I didn't because it seems like those two are more powerful than the first stage of Zera's heaven path, and didn't seem like an accurate branching point. If other contributors that know this page better, feel free to merge the lines and place the branching slash somewhere for Zera's other paths. Although, it seems like, given the format. the other two paths would have to be branched with Zeradias, Herald of Heaven as something like;

could indicate (incorrectly) that Zera took the heaven path normally up to Angel of Zera and the evolving branch is after that point. As well as, Zera the Mant evolves in the Darklord Zerato. (Which it doesn't.) (Peelster1 (talkcontribs) 04:40, July 16, 2014 (UTC))

Fine by me. Thanks. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 05:52, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

Use of the term "retrained"[edit]

The only time I recall seeing "retrained" used officially was on the Upper Deck Entertainment site.

"Dark Magician of Chaos" is a retrained version of one of Yugi's most powerful monsters.

Around that time, I heard several unofficial sources use retrained for "Obnoxious Celtic Guard", "Swift Gaia the Fierce Knight", "Enraged Battle Ox" and Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning".

It was my understanding that a "retrained" counterpart is one which depicts the same monster as the original, not an upgraded/modified/alternate version of it, has the same ATK, DEF and Level and gives it an effect. Which would mean over half the cards listed on this page as retrained counterparts are incorrect.

However the product list page on the same site says that Flaming Eternity contains retrained monsters. I don't see anything in that set that would be considered retrained, even by the criteria this page seems to be using.

Does anyone have any insights/thoughts as to what exactly we should be classing as "retrained"? -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

There are more examples of it being used officially that don't use rules concerning having the same ATK/DEF/Level and depicting the same unaltered monster:
-- Deltaneos (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal[edit]

The page is getting way too long; it should be split into individual pages each covering a single topic to better present the information. --LianYi (talkcontribs) 19:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the split propsal? If nobody objects, I will be implementing the split myself in 1 or 2 days. --LianYi (talkcontribs) 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I feel like we would benefit from a more at-length discussion prior to acting on anything, let alone trying to enforce a 1-2 day limit on it that frankly isn't anywhere near enough time - a lack of objection isn't de facto agreement imo. What I will do is try to transcribe what was discussed in the Discord here, so that said discussion can proceed far more smoothly. --Lord G. matters. Talk to me. 07:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You're right. I did withdraw my split proposal anyways. I was just really stressed and really wanted to push through some of my changes because I felt that this wiki is really slow to do things. --LianYi (talkcontribs) 07:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't mean fast is inherently better, because rushing through things now just creates more of a mess to untangle anyway. It's not like there's any real pressing consequences to not solving this immediately - sure, we'd like this solved sooner rather than later, but beyond that we still need to take our time and develop a sensible approach. --Lord G. matters. Talk to me. 07:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of "card evolution" and "counterpart" definitions[edit]

So per the above, this has been a subject of on-and-off discussion (as in, at least once a month for the past 3), and while we still haven't figured out a decisive course of action to take yet, it's still worth "archiving" what has been talked about on these matters in the Discord so we can eventually build our way towards a "proper" consensus; this should also serve as an "even playing field" where we can provide input and work through any conflicts, rather than having yet another case of someone taking "ownership" of a name space and/or else picking up their figurative ball and going home the second anyone mildly disagrees with them.

One of the main sticking points according to said previous discussions is what actually constitutes a "retrain", an "upgrade", an "alternate" etc. and how arbitrarily each definition is currently "enforced" - an aspect of this that I think ends up glossed over is the fact that we're dealing with a constantly evolving card game, so it stands to reason that older Trivia subsections don't quite match up with however we're currently doing things, let alone for something as relatively specific as this. With that in mind, we don't have to immediately go for a hard boundary in order to establish a boundary with regards to definitions - and as I recall myself mentioning during one discussion a month ago, there's bound to be "all squares are rectangles" cases where one term's definition can end up encompassing another term (e.g. "retrains" being a specific type of "evolution" or "upgrade").

I have no illusions there'll be any immediate returns on starting this, especially since fairly major proposals regarding namespace stuff takes a good while at the best of times - but if nothing else, we can at least establish what shouldn't be done and work from there. For instance, XBrain raises a very good point about "Rush Duel counterparts", which is often applied to cards whose 'original' versions are increasingly being ported to that game as well; I feel like it would make sense to simply call them a "[insert archetype here] counterpart" in light of that.

If there are additional points that I left out, or that simply haven't been brought up, feel free to pitch in here. --Lord G. matters. Talk to me. 08:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

My arguments on Discord can be broadly summarized as follows: I believe that we should not distinguish "retrain", "evolution", "upgrade", and "counterpart", because these terms do not have fixed meanings within the YGO community. As I illustrated with how TheDuelLogs used "retrain" in his "Top 10 Worst Retrained Cards in YuGiOh" video, TheDuelLogs used "retrain" to refer to both monsters and Spells, whereas this page currently defines "retrain" as being specific to monster counterparts. Because of this, any definition of "retrain" as a specific subcategory of "counterpart" will be an arbitrary definition created by this wiki.
I would also like to add the following argument: I believe that we should not subcategorize card counterparts (that do not belong to explicit themes like Malefic), because the connections between card counterparts and their original counterparts are almost always unique to themselves, and cannot be generalized into simple terms like "retrain" or "evolution". A card's counterpart may share its original counterpart's thematic identity, card artwork, effects, or stats, but they may also not share any of them at all. Monsters can be connected by their card storyline lore, anime storyline connections, or even implicit connections like being in the same archetype/series, and these connections are impossible to generalize into big categories (especially since many of them overlap with each other). They must be described individually in detail.
Therefore, I propose that we cut all of the counterpart subcategories and turn this page and "counterpart" into definition pages, and we instead describe all the card counterparts in detail on the individual trivia pages. I would like to resolve this page's issues as soon as possible (I've abandoned way too many projects before), so please provide a response if possible. --LianYi (talkcontribs) 20:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Gosh, I keep forgetting to reply to this. Sorry about that.
I do like the idea of individually describing the card "evolutions", but I'm also fond of keeping them in a consolidated place rather than keeping them confined to Trivia pages. That's my perspective. Sanokal K-T (talkcontribs) 09:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Maintaining a centrally consolidated list of card counterparts is a chore, and does not provide significant value to readers. The information is either going to be drowned out in a massive list of details and card-specific nuances, or excessively simplified and generalized to the point where all details are lost (like the what the page does currently).
I went through all the OCG/TCG cards on the current list and checked all the card counterpart information associated with them. Excluding the "counterparts" that are misinterpretations/exaggerations of minor connections, all the useful and notable card counterpart information should be documented elsewhere on the wiki. For the "Rush Duel counterparts", because this category follows a strict and specific definition, I think maybe this list could be salvaged and moved somewhere else for future use. Overall, with all the information on the current version of the page taken accounted for, I think this page should be retired and turned into a redirect to "Counterpart". --LianYi (talkcontribs) 20:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)