Talk:Spider
|
This is the talk page for discussing the page, Spider. | |
|---|---|
|
Please try to
|
Archetype?[edit]
Eerrr... Spider's aren't a series. Is like creating a "Panda" page with all panda monsters that exist. Without support, they are no series. And that "Jirai Gumo and the others are Spiders because they have been translated so" is stupid. If it is like that, then Celtic Guardian should be a Guardian monster. I'll clear this page if everybody agrees. —This unsigned comment was made by 200.127.26.49 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Blanking pages is pointless. Someone will delete the page if neccessary. I agree with part about the Japanese name translating to "Spider" regardless of differing kanji/katakana being stupid. (It's removed now) But they don't have to have support cards to be considered a series. "Monarchs", "Cyber Girls" and "Warriors" don't have direct support, but are deemed Archetypes. Although I'm not sure if "Roses" or "Spiders" count. -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll let it be. I didn't realice that Monarchs doesn't have support cards, so you are right, not having support doesn't matter. But I still think "Spiders" and "Roses" are like "Pandas". —This unsigned comment was made by 200.127.26.49 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Leave this page here...but can someone removes the normal spider...they arent used by rudger and they should have powerful effect,not normal monsters —This unsigned comment was made by 86.166.145.250 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's the problem. Being used by some character of being powerful has nothing in common on being a series. People on this page have a problem with that every character has to use a series, and create random "series" like "Roses". If you consider "Spiders" an archetype, then Launcher Spider is a "Spider", not matter if it is normal or not, because they have "Spider" on their name and that's all. For me, there's not enought with having a common name to be a series, you must have also some mechanics on common, that's why I don't consider "Spiders" a series. —This unsigned comment was made by 190.138.0.49 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
At the moment I would agree that it isn't really an archetype, but maybe it would be best to wait until after Rudger's second duel with Yusei and see if any more members and support shows up...
- Due to the card sets released in Stardust Overdrive which share mechanics of 'shift to defence' followed by the abusal of it, as well as having a 6 monster set in the release, then they are least as much of an archtype as Monarchs & WarriorsResk 14:47, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
- I think we need to define the difference between a series and a Archetype, or find some way to document cards with certain traits, but that itself is a problem. Monarchs, I think, should be classified as a series rather than an Archetype because they have similar effects, stats, etc. but do not directly involve each other, while cards like the Gravekeepers do influence each other. D.Kaiser (Talk • Contribs • Count) 21:26, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't think we should say an archetype is a set cards that are connected by support, while anything else is a series. The actual English definition of an archetype is an original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated; a prototype. So technically Yu-Gi-Oh! cards that are considered archetypes are "Trap Holes", "Pots" and "Magicians". "Trap Hole", "Pot of Greed" and "Dark Magician" are original models with various other cards based on them. "Monarchs" and Match Winners are probably archetypes too ("Zaborg the Thunder Monarch" and "Victory Dragon" being the original models.) Except maybe "Magicians", none of them are directly involved with each other. So the series that are actual archtypes wouldn't fit the definition you're suggesting. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:24, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
Spiders?[edit]
This may not apply to Yu-Gi-Oh necessarily, but aren't spiders arachnids not insects?--Qim1 (talk • contribs) 13:31, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Which spiders[edit]
Are we using this for any "Spider" or only ones from 5D's sets? The article says the latter, the navbox says the former. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 19:42, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
- Another case of people classifying a series based on name rather than "theme". --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 16:42, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
