☆A list of administrators that you can contact in case of a problem can be found here.
Thanks for contributing, and I hope you'll have a great time here! I look forward to working with you!! your edit to Card Appearances:Slifer the Sky Dragon.
Hshelt2 18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Those categories are now redundant. We use Semantic attributes now to detail what categories are used. For example, in a query, I can use [[Class 2::Anime]] [[Class 3::Manga]] [[Class 4::VG]] in a query to list all cards with that have been featured in the Video Games, Manga and Anime combined.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 16:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- They are to be removed on-sight. Any articles that use |class = are to have that section removed on-sight.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 16:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
when you delete the eng list, why you not delete the jap list? --hanmac
Wow, I thought they'd stopped making Asian-English cards. May I ask where you found that "Red Dragon Archfiend/Assault Mode" image or do you own the card yourself? -- Deltaneos (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you know if there were any other Asian-English sets after Enemy of Justice? -- Deltaneos (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake... I didn't know that the card list existed. I was reading the booster packs page and every one have their own card list down of the info, except gladiator's assault, phantom darkness and light of destruction. Then, the lists appear again in the duelist genesis. Sorry for that again.
"Attribute Bomb's" lore
For "Attribute Bomb's" Tag Force 3 lore, you've said "Attribute" in the first sentence and "Type" in the second. Was that a typo or does that mistake exist in the game? -- Deltaneos (talk) 12:55, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Re: include or not?
"Dragon Warrior" and "Alien Warrior" were made before the "Warrior" series was started. I think it's just a coincidence that they have similar names. I wouldn't consider them part of the archetype. One you didn't mention is "Tune Warrior". It doesn't appear in the anime or manga, but Yusei uses it in a video game. "Blizzard Warrior", "Laval Warrior and "Tune Warrior" are difficult to place, since they were made after the series started, so they could have easily been given different names to avoid confusion.
Personally I'd insist on excluding "Dragon" and "Alien" from
|archetypeX =, am slightly inclined to include "Tune" and slightly inclined to exclude "Blizzard" and "Laval". But don't particularly mind about the last three.
- The "Archfiend" archetype is based on "Summoned Skull", so he is a member despite being released before it. "Archfiend" and "Watt" are different from "Warrior", since they have support cards that affect any card with a certain term in their names. So cards that weren't entirely intentionally part of the series, such as "Wattkid" and many early "Archfiend" cards, are forcefully included. If "Warrior" monsters did have a support card that affected all "ウォリアー" monsters then "Garoth, Lightsworn Warrior", "Ryu Senshi" etc. would be included. Similarly if "Monarch" monsters had support cards that affect all "
帝" monsters, "Machine Emperor Wisel Infinity" and "Odin, Father of the Aesir" would be included, despite not being intended as members of the series. -- Deltaneos (talk) 10:08, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
Re: purgatory cards
Many cards that may questionably be part of or related to an archetype are down to a matter of opinion. Since there's no strict definition of a Yu-Gi-Oh! archetype and there's many interpretations, there's no simple correct answer to whether they're considered part of/related to the archetype. Which definition to go by here is down to whatever the editors can agree on (which is currently inconclusive). My advice:
- If you really think that they are considered related to the "Infernity" series, go ahead and list them. If someone removes them, start a section on the "Infernity" talk page.
- If you're unsure, start the discussion on the "Infernity" talk page first.
- I don't think there's any problem with creating a "Purgatory" article and listing those cards as being part of it. Like with "Infernity", if people disagree start a discussion.
Set Card Gallery categories
Hey Lpoi, I just wanted to let you know that Set Card Galleries are no longer being categorized by set type; they are instead only being categorized by region/language and edition. In addition, we're now working to empty Category:Set Card Galleries of actual gallery pages. When properly copied, the boilerplate at User:Dinoguy1000/boilerplate#Set Card Galleries automatically adds the correct categories. Cheers! 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:10, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
It a nice site and remember to donate to this site, if you can.
- No, not really, I just don't want people to use the link I use. It really cause a lot of problem to the site, since most of them don't donate to the site. Do you understand? WinterNightmare (talk • contribs) 20:57, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
I am confused by your message. Usually, if an act that is agreed upon in the wikia is performed, (like a new card page for a new card that was announced), then the card page is made. This would follow along with your logic - remove the card lists because wikia policy says that the lists are removed when the separate page is formed. There is another superseding rule followed, if the edit is something that requires a change in wikia policy, to keep the article as it was prior to the rule being enacted. This is a way to prevent edit wars over whether or not to keep the change. In this case, the in-place rule says to remove the card lists from the main pages. The over-riding rule says that because I challenged the rule, by saying that the separate card list should not exist and therefore the card list should be on the main page, the original change was the removal of the card lists from the main pages and those edits need to be reverted and not performed again until an official decision on the rule is made. (The rule being, in this case, if we keep the side pages that list only the cards in that set or if we merge them into the pages about the article.) As such, both the original pages and the side pages, the card lists, need to remain untouched until a decision is made.
Now, after all that, I have my confusion. Why do you think that I will need to revert my reverts? The Forum Page already has a huge majority of the people who commented, few as so far but still the majority, agreeing that the list should be on the main page. If that is true, no revert will occur. Why would a revert of me adding the list to the card set pages be performed? --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 17:30, April 5, 2012 (UTC)
Potential image policy change
Hello, there is currently a discussion about changing our image policy at Forum:Potential image policy change. Because such changes are accompanied by a huge amount of work (renaming thousands of files, and updating thousands of pages), we want to make as few of them as possible. Therefore, your input is requested on the proposed change, as well as any comments on other possible changes you have in mind. If you have any questions about the image policy, now is also a good time to ask. Thanks!
Delivered by FZ - Bot. You are receiving this bot-delivered message because you are a mover, an active administrator, or recently moved/uploaded a large number of files affected by this discussion. To opt out of potential future bot-delivered messages, please let Falzar FZ know. 07:15, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
.jpg images versus .png images
Hey, just noticed you edited a Structure Deck page changing unused image names from .png to .jpg. Just letting you know that nowadays, the Wiki prefers to use .png files, as they don't suffer from a loss in quality from saving, unlike .jpgs. So whenever you see unused .jpg file names, it'd be appreciated if you change them to .png. Thanks. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 06:03, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
Can you please stopping moving the OCG Structure Deck. We are only going to move the TCG Structure Deck since the reason can be have found here, with the except being Structure Deck: Marik (TCG). The OCG Structure Deck does not need to follow the TCG Structure Deck name format. WinterNightmare (talk • contribs) 18:44, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I am sorry, I thought you move the other OCG Structure Decks to follow the TCG Structure Deck name, when you can only move one Structure Deck. I understand why Asian English could be the official name for the OCG Structure Deck, but the Asian English is following the TCG name, not the OCG name. WinterNightmare (talk • contribs) 03:10, March 3, 2014 (UTC)