User talk:Dinoguy1000/Archive/2014/01

From Yugipedia
Jump to: navigation, search site

Can you make the "External links" in every card page use the anime name? because some pages have different card's name in the video game, and this make the link wrong, as the Yugioh site use the anime and TCG names.--Dlamash (talkcontribs) 14:36, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

another request =), I noticed that some cards have 2 Japanese names (one is used in the orginal anime), can you make another space for "Japanese other names" or "Japanese Anime". --Dlamash (talkcontribs) 14:53, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
Done and done. Note that for the link, a page will always use the "animename" parameter if it is given, so it's possible that some pages which had the right link before won't have the right one now.
For the Japanese name parameter, use "ja_alt_name" for the actual Japanese name, "ja_alt_romaji" for the romaji version, and "ja_alt_trans" for the translation, if one needs to be given. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 05:48, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
You are right, and its annoying how some pages like "Amazoness Swords Woman" have wrong link because of its anime name. I think the only solution to this problem is to make another parameter that use the Yugioh site's name like "ow_name" and make the link use it whenever it was given. Of course we will only use this if the anime name did not match the TCG's name, and this is very rare case. --Dlamash (talkcontribs) 15:56, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
For any cases where the automatically chosen name isn't correct, the parameter "yugioh_site" should be used to override it with the correct one (I made sure to add an override parameter when I first added the link =) ). I've just done so for Swords Woman. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 16:49, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

PRIO Set Card Listings

I've already provided a source for this. it can be found here. The arguement was whether said source was legitimate. Turns out, the source has been used in the past here and was generally accepted as a legitimate source. Furthermore, Konami would never release a card that is unplayable. Considering Primal Origin is the next pack to be released, Konami wouldn't just go out on a limb and release C80 and c43 and mention 80 and 43 in their card texts, but not put them in the pack. It just wouldn't happen, and there hasn't been any scenario where this has actually happened, because the amount of uproar it would create would be astronomical. In addition to the source, it appeals to logic and Konami's track record. Is this enough proof for you? Because I could go on for hours about this. And I'm sure neither one of us wants to waste time reading/typing a 3 hour long essay. --DysonSlinky (talkcontribs) 20:22, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

You need to link it in your summary, then, instead of just expecting people to know. You also need to cool your confrontational attitude, it's not winning you any sympathy or supporters. There's no race or competition here; we don't need to worry about having stuff documented the absolute second it's revealed anywhere else.
I have no opinion on whether that source is acceptable or not, but it having been used before without being challenged isn't sufficient. The question is whether it's demonstrated to have a reliable track record.
It doesn't matter how sound your logic is; we can't make any conclusions that aren't explicitly spelled out in a reliable source. And if you want a counterpoint to your argument, while it may not have been Konami directly responsible for it, Blue-Eyes Shining Dragon was released to the TCG over a year before Blue-Eyes Ultimate Dragon - in spite of the former being unsummonable without the latter, at least at the time. I believe there have been other similar cases (including at least one in the Japanese OCG), but I don't recall any deatils and could very well just be misremembering. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:37, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
The link was in the original edit. Someone undid it and said "not a real source, not a real source gaiz". Which lead into a heavy debate about what constitutes a source. Your input is appreciated though~. --DysonSlinky (talkcontribs) 20:42, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
See? This is what I mean He's just not going to stop. --DysonSlinky (talkcontribs) 21:49, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion on that particular source - I am not generally someone who can judge the validity of sources for YGO information - but I will point out that Golden Key commented on us having used Geocities in the past: Geocities is only the host, and allows anyone to create their own website (or at least, they did back when I created my own first site with them, years before shut down; I assume has always, and does, worked the same way), so any discussion of whether a source on Geocities is valid needs to focus on that specific source, and the decision is not a blanket decision for all Geocities sites. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 23:34, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Are templates not working for you or is it just me?

I just want to let you know that for some reason, I can't open up any archetype tabs at the bottom of a page, or the things on a page where it tells you what episode or card set the card was in. I hope that you fix this problem soon. It may be just me, but if it isn't, I hope you look into it, because I like typing down archetype decks on my computer in my space time. Thank you for your cooperation. (HamsterDancer (talkcontribs) 15:27, January 20, 2014 (UTC))

Documenting Errata

What do you mean by "all changes have to be documented"? The current method works fine when there are only two lores to compare, but once there's three or more, the 4 or 5 different ways of marking changes can quickly stack into an unreadable mess (see an earlier version of Card Errata:Necrovalley for a particularly egregious example). I don't understand how simply bolding the changes from the previous lore would not be enough. Blueapple128 (talkcontribs) 21:18, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

I never said the current method is ideal; the ideal method would be to compare each successive pair of errata separately, and this is the method I'd ultimately like to switch to, but doing so will be a massive undertaking given the sheer number of errata'd cards, and the fact that it will require a separate template. In the meantime, the system currently used is quite straightforward, even if particular examples can get ridiculous: additions from an older erratum to a newer one use <ins></ins>, deletions use <del></del>, and other changes use either bolding or italics: the first erratum pair uses bold, the second uses italics, the third back to bold, and so on. (Or at least, this is how errata are supposed to work; we don't have it clearly documented anywhere obvious and it's a fairly recent thing, so there are still a lot of erratum pages that haven't been updated yet, and a lot of editors that work on errata pages haven't necessarily caught on yet.) ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:37, January 29, 2014 (UTC)