Talk:El Shaddoll
|
This is the talk page for discussing the page, El Shaddoll. | |
|---|---|
|
Please try to
|
Article Deletion[edit]
I've created this article because the english NECH article lists an "El Shaddoll monster", and I didn't want to keep it as a red link. I do consider the point valid, as the Bujin subseries don't have articles for themselves. However, articles like Evigishki and Daigusto exist, and that's why I though this one would be necessary too, but if this article feels superfluous, then I don't have anything against its deletion. GMTails (talk • contribs) 02:45, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
- The El Shaddoll are significantly different than the maindeck Shaddoll monsters, in attribute, monster type, effect type, effect focus, and naming pattern (at least the original Japanese naming). If we're going to allow sub-series like Evigishki and Daigusto, then the El Shaddoll definitely deserve their own page. So the question then becomes, should we be allowing sub-series like Evigishki and Daigusto? Emmic (talk • contribs) 02:57, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
- I personally think that articles for sub-series are not needed. The only exception is if that sub-series become a sub-archetpye, like DDD and Royal Cookmate. Otherwise, archetype > series, so everything about a sub-series should be in the main archetype article (personal opinion here). LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 20:46, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with deleting this as well. TheScarecrow14 (talk • contribs) 08:51, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
- I feel that if a sub-series is expansive enough it should be allocated a page as well, but that's exactly the point, isn't it: El Shadolls aren't expansive in number or role. They don't need their own page. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk) 17:31, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm... Well, number-wise there'll be as many El Shaddoll as Daigusto once the attribute cycle is complete (more if you count El Shaddoll Fusion), so deleting the article for number reasons only to recreate it next month or so seems kinda pointless. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "expansive in role" since the El Shaddoll aren't really any less diverse than the above Evigishki or Daigusto in terms of their role in the story or role in gameplay. I'm rather indifferent about whether this particular article stays or goes, but I maintain that what happens to this one should happen to the others. Emmic (talk • contribs) 18:27, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
- El Shaddoll is simply Shaddoll's power. They are the core cards of the archetype. Still, that doesn't justify having one article just for them, in my opinion. Simply because there is no need for one. You don't build a "El Shaddoll" deck, you build a "Shaddoll" deck. And both "Shaddoll" and "El Shaddoll" are used together, it's not like they have different playing styles or something. I'll use the Bujin example again. Bujin, Bujingi and Bujintei are one single thing that works together, not separate stuff. I don't see reasons to have an "El Shaddoll" article, nor a "Daigusto" article, nor a "Evigishki" article. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 00:10, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
- The only exception I would like to take, is "XX-Saber" monsters. Mostly because they are the 2nd generation of X-Sabers. (Didn't the original 10 die off in the DT storyline or something? I know that Uruz carried on into Gardestrike, and Swordmaster Gottoms into XX-Saber Gottoms, but that's it). Plus, all of the XX-Sabers have red capes =o. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 00:18, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. This does not need a page, nor do the "Bujin" subsets. There is no real difference. Its not the same case as, say the "Evol" stuff. Also, "another page exists" should not be an argument for another page. Yes, another page exists. Perhaps it shouldn't, though. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 00:23, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
- When I said "expansive in role" earlier, I meant like if it was a really significant, 12 or so group of El Shaddolls that were named as something clearly separate or something. Basically, I don't really think ANY of these sub-series, Daigusto, Evigishki, or El Shaddolls, really have enough of a separate role from the main archetype, in number, story, or gameplay usage, to justify giving them a separate page. It's superfluous, and the only reason you would ever deign to do that is if there was something extra you just really had to explain on some other page, which could still really be covered on the main page. Truthfully, I believe subseries subpages shouldn't really exist, since my definition of "significant" is mostly covered by the terms of sub-archetype. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk) 01:27, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
- So I take it we have no objections to delete the sub-series articles? LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 18:23, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
- No objections, and thank all of you for participating in this discussion. I think we should keep/move this talk page for future reference. Also, "Dragunity Knight" and "Dragon of the Ice Barrier" could fit in this definition as well. GMTails (talk • contribs) 18:49, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
- This page should never have existed, nor should the Boss series pages. Unless a series becomes an archetype in its own right by a card, they should be kept in as basic a form as possible to comply with simplicity. "Shaddoll Fusion" and "El Shaddoll Fusion" list this series as "Shaddoll" Fusion Monsters, so they do not qualify for a page in their own right. If a card is released, for example, that reads [Target 1 "El Shaddoll" card in your Graveyard ...], only then should this page be reinstated. Unless it soon becomes Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia policy that Boss series deserve their own pages, the same should go for the other Boss series pages that currently exist. These include: "Daigusto", "Evigishki", "Dragunity Knight", "Dragon of the Ice Barrier". GGNoRe (talk • contribs) 19:23, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
