Talk:Zombie World (series)

This is the talk page for discussing the page, Zombie World (series).
This page is for discussing how to improve the page. For general discussion and comments, use the general discussion forum. To ask about rulings or how cards work, use the ruling queries forum. To get help with building a Deck, use the Deck help forum. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Please try to Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming

Series worthy

Zombie World deserves a series page, it fits our definition of what a series is: "a group of cards with similar name, artwork, and/or effect design, but do not have a single shared name string that is supported by a card effect that are present in archetypes."

There are enough cards (Glow-Up Bloom, Immortal Ruler, Necroworld Banshee) that directly support it, as well as cards that are clearly intended to tie in with it mechanically (Red-Eyes Zombie Necro Dragon, Doomking Balerdroch, Return of the Zombies). Zombie World also has lore in MG6 which ties in several other cards with it (Red-Eyes Zombie Dragon, Zombie Necronize, Zombie Power Struggle, Tatsunecro).

Additionally "Zombie World" is generally considered a deck type by the wider community and while it could be argued to be a generic-Zombie deck of sorts, we don't do deck lists on type pages, only archetype/series pages, and thus we don't have recommendations for this Zombie World-type deck anywhere when we really should.

Series pages have been made for less (Daedalus, Divine Dragon, cular, Burning Skull etc.), so I believe the page should be re-instated and then further improved upon. --84.203.1.177 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Technically, what you're suggesting doesn't fit our definition of a series. The issue is that there isn't a unifying theme(s): "a group of cards with similar name, artwork, and/or effect design". The and/or doesn't mean you can switch the criteria for the series on a card-by-card basis. What it means is that there's one or multiple themes unifying the group itself. You're mix-and-matching different themes (mechanics, lore, etc.) that each only encompasses a small portion of the 'members', not all of them.

Take Umi (series) for example: the unifying theme is that all members are Fields that are "Umi" or treat themselves as "Umi", and the 'related' cards are all cards that directly support "Umi". However, there are plenty of other cards that are loosely connected to "Umi" and/or its playstyle, but they're not included as 'related' as they don't directly support "Umi".

Besides, there's already a series that encompasses most of those cards: Zombie counterpart. If you really want to add deck recommendations to that page, I don't think anyone would object. Anyways, that's my two cents. --KyoPa (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Not all series will have the cards have names that share the same wording (Huge Revolution or Trains for example). Zombie counterpart includes many monsters unrelated to the Zombie World theme, and the whole counterpart-based pages are different from standard series, they don't have much unity mechanically. --84.203.1.177 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I never said names have to be the same wording. The and/or means it's only one possible unifying theme. The issue is that what you're suggesting does not have a single unifying theme. As for your point against Zombie counterpart, 'lore' doesn't have mechanical unity either, yet you're using that as an example criteria. --KyoPa (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Do the cards I listed not have a unifying theme with Zombie World? (Glow-Up Bloom, Immortal Ruler, Necroworld Banshee, Red-Eyes Zombie Necro Dragon, Doomking Balerdroch, etc.), the cards are clearly meant to be related to one another and ZW. --84.203.1.177 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You're generalizing different means of relations to ZW (some directly support ZW, some depict ZW in their artworks, some have strong lore-connections to ZW), of which no singular mean applies to all of them. That's not unifying. --KyoPa (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Just my two cents, and sorry to interject in your discussion; I definitely think there is some merit to a Zombie World series page, purely because of two reasons

a) They're pretty much differentiated through Master Duel product (be it the Structure or the Secret Pack in which it's in (shared with Vendread iirc)), which, along with it originating from a structure (and those have always indicated a separate series and/or archetype), is a pretty good indicator that they're intended to be separate

b) There's been an actual wave of exclusively stuff for the zombie world stuff in a main booster pack (DIFO), and a wave of 4-5 cards most often than not indicates that they're all interconnected, which is what a series page actually serves the purpose for BerserkerPhantom (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry for reposting again, LORE. There's LORE for it. BerserkerPhantom (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that 'correlation does not imply causation' applies to the first case. There are several Structures that do not have a central series/archetype, like the Cyberse/Link and Dragon Structures. The Structures are built upon a synergistic playstyle, and "archetypes" are simply the main medium for synergistic playstyles in the TCG/OCG.

I'll clarify that I'm not saying that there is no relation between them all. What I'm arguing is that all of them altogether are not tied together in a way that is indicative of what normally classifies as a series. If you want to focus on a specific subset of cards with a unifying correlation, that would be fine.

However, the issue is that they seem to want to include every related card, but regardless of the chosen relation, several of the suggested cards would have to be excluded from the series since they're not all connected to ZW and to each other in the exact same way. Some are only connected to ZW because they're connected to a card that does have a direct connection to ZW, at which point where do you draw the line? --KyoPa (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Which of the cards do you believe would not belong in the series? If it's cards like Tatsunecro which are only related by lore, they would just go in the "Related" section of the infobox rather than being listed as Members of the series, since thats how we treat lore-related cards. --84.203.1.177 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That would depend on the unifying theme of choice, because, again, there is no universal unifying theme as a point of reference. Moreover, lore alone is not a reason to be 'Related'. There are usually some additional similarities that are expected (e.g. synergistic effects/playstyle, similar Level/Type/Attribute, etc.). Lore merely indicates whether such similarities are intentional or not (like how two very different monsters sharing similar stats are only treated as an evidence of relation if they have shared lore).

Again, back to the Umi example, "Umi" and its counterparts have lots of 'lore-related' cards (including entire archetypes) that are not listed as 'Related'. Don't even get me started on how many cards are related by lore to the Albaz Dragon series (of which, the line is drawn to lore-related cards that directly support Fusion Monsters that mention "Fallen of Albaz" as material). --KyoPa (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the structure argument, the R's have tied together all the random cards within them either through archetypes (like Parshath & Felgrand), or Lair of Darkness stuff in the case of SDR6 and the "Virus" stuff. Idk, I can sort of see both sides of this, i think the simplest thing to do would just be to refer to the zombie world stuff in the "Zombie counterpart" page more coherently.

As for the "lore =/= series", that's... just not true. Yes, if a monster or two are tied together in lore in a short paragraph about their rivalry (such as like with the case of Rappa Chiyomaru and IP Masquerena), that's all there is, but there's I think more than enough evidence to suggest that all the zombie world support we've gotten has given us enough world building (the whole Baledroch vs Red-Eyes thing) to make the series independently different from generic zombie pile stuff. Idk, just my two cents, don't have a strong opinion on it, just thought i'd throw some arguments into the mix that i felt were overlooked BerserkerPhantom (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Well my suggestion is that the Zombie World series be composed of the following:

• Members: Zombie World, Glow-Up Bloom, Immortal Ruler, Necroworld Banshee, Red-Eyes Zombie Necro Dragon, Doomking Balerdroch, Return of the Zombies (they are related mechanically, thematically and by the lore)
• Related: Red-Eyes Zombie Dragon, Red-Eyes Zombie Dragon Lord, Zombie Necronize, Zombie Power Struggle, Tatsunecro (due to being featured in Zombie World's MG6 lore), and Soul-Absorbing Bone Tower (due to being constantly featured prominently as the key part of the Zombie World).

--84.203.1.177 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The main issue with just putting the contents on the Zombie counterpart series is that multiple members of that series, most notably the original Call of the Haunted Zombie trio have no relation to Zombie World. --84.203.1.177 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)