| abstract
| - Fine, let us discuss. For what reason do you think THIS should be deleted?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 21:52, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Based on this discussion: It was decided not to add baseless assumptions on why Numbers have their numbers. The second point of trivia is unimportant. No other Number has, "This number is the first in the fifties/seventies/eighties" because it is ridiculous to document it. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 21:55, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Ridiculous on what assumption? Are you saying this card is not the 4th rank 7 monster to be introduced, and that it is not the first 7ss Number in TCG?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:00, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Yes, that assumption is highly dubious, unconfirmed, and very unoriginal (like they would specifically plan for it to be the 7th one}. It is just a coincidence, and it was agreed not to document such assumptions. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:05, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Well, as it turns out, they did. All Numbers have a meaning to them that must be found. So unless you can find another meaning to the number 74 sticking on Master of Blade's hide, people will keep denying the deletion notice.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:07, May 12, 2013 (UTC) And I keep telling you that it was agreed for that to stop. Their meanings don't have to be found since it was getting ludicrous, with people doing random equations to get the corresponding Number. Unless it's completely obvious, we don't put up reasons for why Numbers have their numbers. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:11, May 12, 2013 (UTC) That look fine to me, so it's non-sense to delete it. Konami is smart Company and they can make a plenty of pun intend with those number purposes and reference. If you don't want that, leave and start your family life. Those are better than have you in here and fighting over little cards and their relates. --iFredCat 22:17, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Now you listen to me. The idea behind Numbers is having a deeper meaning behind them, no matter how tiny or lidicrous it may be. Otherwise we'd assume they were indeed placed randomly, which goes in contrary to the developer's words. Can you find another meaning behind Number 74 aside from that one?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:19, May 12, 2013 (UTC) If you don't remember, the same thing happened with Number 44, and it was removed. I am just basing it as nonsense based on the admin's decision there. Therefore, this trivia point must go too. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:20, May 12, 2013 (UTC) I don't recalled visiting Number 44's Trivia... Must be banned during that time it was created then burnt down to the ash. So no, it's stay if Admins decided to leave them be. Usually the articles that flagged as delete are usually vandalism and spammed, this one don't. So f-ing you and get out. --iFredCat 22:22, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Well, read the discussion on its trivia page then. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:23, May 12, 2013 (UTC) As far as I can see, the trivia is still there.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:24, May 12, 2013 (UTC) It's still here, problem? --iFredCat 22:25, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Well, not the whole trivia. Only some points were removed. This one has to be deleted since all of its points are against policy. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:26, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Look like other user has disagreed to you. So stop being ass and grow some good bones please. --iFredCat 22:27, May 12, 2013 (UTC) It doesn't matter. This is not a matter of majority. The policy is still in place. Anyway, can you call an admin to finish this? I don't know any of them, or I would have by now. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:31, May 12, 2013 (UTC) You're digging yourself a shallow grave, my friend. What reason do you have to keep this discussion going like this?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:32, May 12, 2013 (UTC) You and your army? What army? I got Hawk00, Gallis, and few other users that against your thought. Who would supporting you here and over there on Number 85? Nope? A group of ants? --iFredCat 22:32, May 12, 2013 (UTC) I have the admins, who have created this policy. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 22:33, May 12, 2013 (UTC) I also happen to think that this trivia should be removed. I thought it was established that the Wiki would be moving away from irrelevant trivia like this. That's certainly the policy being enforced on other pages.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:36, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Also, Fred, you should know better than to continue to engage in an edit war after a discussion has been opened. It's counter productive. If someone reverts the edit, just leave it. It can always be reverted after the discussion resolves.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:43, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Irrelevant on what basis? Isn't that the point of Trivia, to display the tiny bits of information?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 22:37, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Irrelevant on the basis that nothing supports the trivia. It may be the 4th Rank 7 monster to be released, but unless you have some evidence to support this was intended, it's speculation. This is how we end up with giant trivia pages full of crap like "This monster's Number is its Rank - its DEF + the number of times it was shown on screen in the anime." It was established that we would start to move away from trivia like this. Also, why does it matter that it's the first Rank 7 Number released as a TCG-exclusive? It's nothing special, since there are several other Rank [x] monsters also being released as exclusives in Number Hunters. We're not adding trivia to every single one of them.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:43, May 12, 2013 (UTC) If you think so, Joey, then call your Admin buddy and get that article devoured. It's just sit there, suck the thumb like a baby, wait to be killed and send to the hell. --iFredCat 22:44, May 12, 2013 (UTC) There you go.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:55, May 12, 2013 (UTC) I don't care about what other are thinking about our conversation - I am asking you to get rid of the article or Delete Flag. With either one gone, this discussion can end peaceful, dammit. --iFredCat 23:00, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Well, Joey? Are you gotta pull the cannon or take the flag down? It just can't sit there forever, ya'know. --iFredCat 23:16, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Fred, don't make me get aggressive. An admin has already said that the trivia is irrelevant, and it isn't any of your concern how long the deletion notice stays. Someone will get to it eventually.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 23:20, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Joey... if you're aware of Spiderman's "Spider Sense", then I am also possessing the one, which is called "Cat Instinct" - it's still on the high alert, like a wildly, untamed lion that raid the indoor building. This article has been sit for a while, so it's time to destroy it or get rid of the delete flag - once it's gone, my instinct will calm down, trust me. --iFredCat 23:25, May 12, 2013 (UTC) I cannot believe we're still discussing this. Fact remains, all Numbers have their numbers selected with utmost care. Even if it is a coincidence, it should be noted as a fact. Unless you can find another meaning behind number 74 that is branded on Master of Blades' essence, we have no choice but to assume that the order of the releases of the numbers was intentional.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 09:58, May 13, 2013 (UTC) Forget it, Hawk - Joey said that it has to go, then it has to go. And I am still on the alert - due to my instinct. --iFredCat 11:31, May 13, 2013 (UTC) Then what other link to Number 74 can you offer?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 11:37, May 13, 2013 (UTC) I have nothing to offering - If Joey said it's go, then it's go, period. --iFredCat 11:39, May 13, 2013 (UTC) Are you saying it really was at random?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 11:49, May 13, 2013 (UTC) No, it was a good information - but it's too board, general and very common things that can be repeat posting on other articles, like an obviously news we already know. Joey's right about this reason so it have to go. --iFredCat 11:51, May 13, 2013 (UTC) Then why destroy this knowledge? Would any of you have noticed this reference if it wasn't set up here previously?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 12:24, May 13, 2013 (UTC) Therefore, I would repeat what I told to IP-Addressed User; if you wish to keep this article, talk with Joey and try to reasoning him why you think that this article should stay. After all, he declared this article to be demoting to nothing. --iFredCat 12:26, May 13, 2013 (UTC) Give me Joey's link.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 12:28, May 13, 2013 (UTC) The fact that we are still discussing this is also bizarre to me. I've given you a lengthy explanation as to why this trivia is trash, which you've yet to respond to, not to mention the previous precedent that goes against this type of trivia, and if that wasn't enough, I also asked cheesedude about it and he agreed that the trivia was irrelevant. So, what's left to discuss, exactly?--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 12:40, May 13, 2013 (UTC) Hawk believed that the Trivia in that articles are unique - only to be little irony, it's very common trivia we see daily. So go get Cheesy to delete that trivia if you still believed that it's trash and anything related to it. --iFredCat 13:26, May 13, 2013 (UTC) So, is everyone in agreement that this page should be decimated? 190.124.165.194 (talk) 03:46, May 15, 2013 (UTC) I'm not.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 08:37, May 15, 2013 (UTC) And do you actually have a valid reason. That trivia is trash, and the policy clearly states it is against such trivia. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 18:11, May 15, 2013 (UTC) You're implying that, but you don't know the meaning of it. Every Number needs a meaning to their numbers. Would any of you have thought of that link if someone did not mention it in the trivia section?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:03, May 15, 2013 (UTC) So you're saying that this Number need a define of it "Number" to match onto it looks and name? This one lacked that idea. --iFredCat 19:11, May 15, 2013 (UTC) And that's why the meaning behind the Number has to be found elsewhere. Satoshi Kuwabara said that no Number is chosen at random. Each is chosen carefully with attention to details. That means the fact the info on all Numbers in Number Hunters was released to TCG on purpose, in this order, which would make this information on it being the 4th rank 7 Number valid.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:29, May 15, 2013 (UTC) Who. gives. a. crap. The "link" is totally ridiculous and there's no evidence for it, nor does it matter at all. I'm getting sick of this absurd campaign for Numbers trivia and I'm going to request that an admin deal with this immediately.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 19:30, May 15, 2013 (UTC) What evidence? It's the truth! A real member of the wikia staff would care! People have tried deleting that ridiculus deletion board several times before, and they will do it again until this is proven wrong.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:41, May 15, 2013 (UTC) *clapping* Congratulation, that article is now dead. So now can we stop the discussion? --iFredCat 20:16, May 15, 2013 (UTC) You think you're out of the game just for that? You didn't even give a proper explanation other than your own sattisfaction over this!--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 20:25, May 15, 2013 (UTC) The "game" is over. It didn't comply with new Wikia trivia policy and your argument wasn't strong enough. Get over it.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 20:31, May 15, 2013 (UTC) Well, sorry for being an ass over this. I only wished for the argument to dead. And now it's gone. Therefore don't bring it up again, or if you wish to do so - continue it in my talk article. Alright? --iFredCat 20:33, May 15, 2013 (UTC) That's baloney! Your assumption that the information is just speculation is speculation itself. Why don't you tweet Kuwabara himself to confirm it?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 20:37, May 15, 2013 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned, the issue is resolved and there's no further need to continue this discussion.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:22, May 15, 2013 (UTC) Well then you'll just have to bear with me complaining about it on this discussion and keep on saying how you don't care until I hit a nerve, because I haven't given up on it! The essential meaning of the Numbers is the fact that each and every number selected bears a hidden meaning, a message, a story of it's own. That's what makes the archetype so amazing, because the entire story is hidden within only those 2 digits. 3 if you count the Over Hundreds. You can't deny that there are links, references and hidden stories in cards and special meanings to names in the entire game, so why should the Numbers be any different? They did not pick 74 because they just felt like it, they made each and every choice very carefully. 83 (Galaxy Queen) refers to Mother's Day, March 8th, 8th of 3rd, reflecting it's role in the story. Number 9 (Dyson Sphere), bonds the Arclights since 9 in roman numbers can be seen like a fusion of their code names, plus it's pronounciation in Japanese sounds similar to "sphere". Number 34 (Terror-Byte), named after a terrabyte, which is 1024 bytes, 1+0+2 with 4 equals 3 and 4, ergo 34, a computer utility unit for this computer beast. And you seriously don't care about Zexal staff putting up all that effort in telling us all that through these codes? Do you spit on that effort that much?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 14:13, May 16, 2013 (UTC) It's not so much that people deny there is meaning behind the choice of numbers. But we don't know what that meaning is. There are loads of ways you can find a connection to a card's number by looking at its other details. We don't know which one the creators chose. Posting something that might be it is like editing an article on an upcoming episode to say what might happen. It's speculation, which we don't allow. I think it's fine to post a number derivation, if you can prove that's how the number was chosen. e.g. the "Number 16: Shock Master" one was confirmed by Satoshi Kuwabara. on Twitter. Just to nitpick, in Japan, Mother's Day is the second Sunday in May and depending on what standard you go by, a terabyte is either 1000^4 (1,000,000,000,000) or 1024^4 (1,099,511,627,776) bytes. -- Deltaneos (talk) 17:11, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Like Delta confirmed, we required the right answer of the reason why Creator chose that way - This one don't have the "right answer" as of yet; therefore the reason why this article had to go. Patience is a virtue! --iFredCat 17:30, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Well then, why don't you? Tweet in on the Creator and see if the guess was correct. As I said, your speculation that this was a speculation is a speculation itself, which you don't allow.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 18:15, May 16, 2013 (UTC) It's speculation to post something that isn't verified. It's not speculation to leave something blank. e.g. when a new Booster Pack comes out, most often we won't know the full contents of the set immediately. It's fine to leave parts of the card list blank until they are known. It's not okay to post cards without knowing if they're in the set or not, just because nobody can prove they're false. Creating a Twitter account and learning Japanese at a decent level or finding someone willing to translate what I need to ask is a fair bit of work... and I'm not even the one who wants to post the trivia. I have my own theories on certain parts of Yu-Gi-Oh!, but I wouldn't post any of them here unless I can find evidence that they're true first. I wouldn't post them and then insist that someone else find proof or disproof. -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:28, May 16, 2013 (UTC) And what proof do you need? It IS the 4th rank 7 Number monster published.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:38, May 16, 2013 (UTC) That is not proof. By proof, he means a confirmation form an official source. But, it's not like we have to have proof to post it. If the reason seems likely enough, we'll still post it, even if it's not confirmed. For example, Utopia's 39 is based on "sankyū"/"thank you." A card being the 4th/7th/n-th of something is something we believe is not likely enough, for obvious reasons: it's dumb and uncreative. If they are going to give a meaning to every number, it isn't going to stem just from its Rank and order in which it's released, or the number of times it was shown, or how many times it was used, or what episode it was used in, etc. 77.69.2.220 (talk) 19:52, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Oh, and would you know they wouldn't?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:56, May 16, 2013 (UTC) We don't know; that's why he asked you for proof... Just because we don't know whether it's true or not, it doesn't mean that we will post it. 77.69.2.220 (talk) 20:00, May 16, 2013 (UTC) And what other explanation is there? Same goes for Leviathan Dragon, do you honestly think they'd pick the Number that begun the archetype out of pure boredom?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 20:04, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Plus "Number 39: Utopia", Hawk. --iFredCat 20:08, May 16, 2013 (UTC) I did not see him on the cover of the first Zexal booster, Freddy.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 20:10, May 16, 2013 (UTC) I am aware of that - but Utopia came in Anime after Number 17. Also, he was give the details of why his Number was referring to his name and looks. --iFredCat 20:29, May 16, 2013 (UTC) As was Number 17: 17th in line of being a rare kind of a certain kind (I forgot which kind, which I can no longer check because the trivia is gone).--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 20:40, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Has there really been any 100% confirmed proof of why a Number has gotten its Number? It has been stated that Numbers can have second meanings right? Number 74 could easily have gotten its Number from being the 4th Rank 7 Number. It could also have gotten its Number from something that will be explained in the anime/manga. Either way, it is worth being stated that it is in fact, the 4th Rank 7 Number. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 20:58, May 16, 2013 (UTC) It's not worth stating that. Only firsts are documented. And, no, it couldn't have easily gotten its number from being the 4th Rank 7, because that reason is uncreative and stupid. If we don't know how it got its number, then there's no need to guess what it is. 77.69.2.220 (talk) 21:05, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Why is this still being discussed? Admins and Wikia policy go against the trivia, not to mention the myriad of logical reasons why it's irrelevant, and the page has already been deleted. Hawk is just adamant on pushing this because it's what he believes, but unfortunately, he has no evidence and last I checked, this wasn't "Hawk's Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki." I think it's about time we just ignore this.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 21:08, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Ok, if that is the case, then how did it get its Number? NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 21:16, May 16, 2013 (UTC) If he's still talking, get some boxer gloves from your new favorite archetype and hit him down, until he's down. --iFredCat 21:16, May 16, 2013 (UTC) We don't know how it got its number because there isn't a likely enough reason as of now. That's why this page was deleted. Being the 4th Rank 7 is an unlikely AND unconfirmed reason why it got its number. 77.69.2.220 (talk) 21:19, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Oh? And at what point were the other reasons for the Numbers being chosen confirmed? NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 21:24, May 16, 2013 (UTC) They weren't, but, unlike this one, they are highly likely because the OCG creators operate on a pun base for most of their cards. For example, 39 is a pun on "sankyuu/thank you," 85 is on "hako/box," 16 is on "iro/color," etc. However, if by some reason, you happen to confirm with an official source that this card is 74 because of its being the 4th Rank 7 Number, you will be allowed to apply this logic to the others. Otherwise, unless it's a likely reason, it will be immediately eliminated from the Trivia page. 77.69.2.220 (talk) 21:30, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Ahh, so it is only unlikely. However, while the reasons you stated do make perfect sense, they are not confirmed. But it is FACT that this is the 4th Rank 7 Number is it not? NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 21:44, May 16, 2013 (UTC) What? Not gonna say anything? Come on, ENLIGHTEN ME! NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 23:28, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Yes, it's true, but we only document it if it's the first of something, not fourth. 190.206.110.15 (talk) 23:34, May 16, 2013 (UTC) It is different when we are referring to Numbers. Besides, I was talking to a different contributor. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 00:00, May 17, 2013 (UTC) How is it any different with Numbers?! If it's not the first, we don't add it. Also, a different user can participate too; this isn't a private discussion - it's on a Talk page. 2.133.93.219 (talk) 00:24, May 17, 2013 (UTC) This is not about it being the 4th Rank 7 Number, this is about how it may have gotten its Number and its inclusion on the Trivia Page. I know this is not a private conversation, it is just that I would expect the contributor I was talking to to respond. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 00:33, May 17, 2013 (UTC) That guy isn't going to be on the wiki the whole day. If he doesn't respond, it's probably not because he was dumbfounded or anything. Also, I agree with the other users; that isn't the reason why it has its number. We don't know what it is, but it's definitely not that. And not knowing it is no reason for people to make up these weird assumptions about the Numbers. This is a problem with Trivia pages nowadays. No Number has been confirmed to be named based on a numerical order of some sort. Most of the Numbers' numbers, when reading their Japanese number in a certain way, form a homonym that can be easily associated with their appearance and motif. That is why the creator said that every Number has a meaning - not because of some baseless, labyrinthine numerical order. They have a meaning that also holds some sort of creative value. The '39' in Utopia's name can be read "Sankyū," which is a play on "Thank you." This connects to the motif of the card and its relation and similarity to Yuma. For them to actually count what order they were releasing similarly Ranked Numbers holds no creative value whatsoever. That is why everyone is against it; because it is very improbable. Therefore, this card being the 4th Rank 7 Number is just a coincidence until proven otherwise. That is not the origin of its number because it holds no value. I'd advise you to try thinking about some other reason why it has this number, though this would be better when its full OCG name is revealed, and to abandon this baseless reasoning for its number. Don't underestimate and insult the creator with suggesting that this is how they create the Numbers. 2.133.93.219 (talk) 00:54, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Who said I was insulting anybody? You are totally overreacting, and you are only insulting the creator by speaking for him and saying what he would and would not do. Look, there is a very strong chance that the fact that it is the 4th Rank 7 Number is not the reason that the Number is 74. However, it has been stated that the Numbers can have more than 1 meaning. This can simply be a secondary meaning to the actual one. Even if it is not, it should still be stated anyway. What are the odds that Number 74 would be the 4th Rank 7 Number released? It is still a good piece of trivia that should be on the page. I have seen a lot of trivia on this wiki that has just as much reason as this to be on a Trivia page. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 01:05, May 17, 2013 (UTC) If you so earnestly believe that Numbers deserve an additional meaning, then start a forum on the Wiki Discussion section where you'll explain this reasoning. Discussing it only here will accomplish nothing. The current policy prevents this sort of Trivia. You can try suggesting a change to the policy, but, as of now, we do not record theories on the Numbers' numbers based on numerical order only, and I support this. 2.133.93.219 (talk) 01:12, May 17, 2013 (UTC) It is nothing I "earnestly believe" it is fact that Numbers have secondary meanings. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure it was stated officially. Can you please give me a link to the policy? NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 01:24, May 17, 2013 (UTC) So you still think it's just an "assumption"? Let me tell you something about "assumptions": Fishborg Blaster Trivia, stating the fish in the tank resembles an archer fish, which compares to it's long-ranged equipment; Geargigant X Trivia, stating this monster resembles, and is possibly inspired, by numerous robots and/or creatures in other franchizes, such as Transformers and Digimon; Abaki's trivia, stating it's name is an anagram for Kaiba; Stealth Bird Trivia, stating this monster is believed to be an inspiration for the entire Blackwing archetype; Jowls of Dark Demise trivia, stating the monster is inspired by Cymothoa exigua, a kind of fish paracite crustacean that eats up and takes over the funtion of the invaded fish's tongue; Arcana Force XV: The Fiend trivia, stating how it's porperty as a LIGHT Fiend-type monster is based on the concept of Lucifer. With all this, I was just selecting random articles, and all these things poped up, and I'm pretty sure I'd find more and more examples for these so called assumptions. None of these facts are confirmed as official, and yet they all seem to be true. Assumption is what trivia is based on. Find a similarity, and note it, thus we're expanding the total knowledge of whoever reads the trivia. If you're only gonna publish stuff that you can be absolutely and 100% certain, why the heck is there and Edit button atop of the screen if the wikia staff is the only one apparently can use it properly? What do you think Wikia contributers are gonna contribute to this if not something that they believe never occured to anyone before? This especially goes for the Numbers: their existence is stated around decoding the meaning of their numbers, and it's obvious not everyone on the wikia is capable of doing that. If you find a connection, you post it, everyone sees it, and all Number fans can finally rest in peace. Following the new policy is one thing, but if you're gonna follow it this strictly to the end you'll indefinitely terminate over 80% information that people worldwide worked hard to gather. If it's such a soar in your eye, then ignore it, don't delete it just because YOU can't stand it.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 12:55, May 17, 2013 (UTC) And no, I don't intend to back down from this discussion, I have walked away from things before, but this... THIS is something I put my heart in, and I will not be calling myself a human being if I back down from it. I'm gonna make you restore this and all other Number trivias if it's the last damn thing I do!--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 12:57, May 17, 2013 (UTC) You still seem not to get it. I have already told you that these kinds of Trivia are in the process of being deleted. In fact, I will personally delete them right away. Just because there are already some Trivia like that doesn't help your case in any way. If any admin or user who respects the policy saw them, then he would delete them. Also, make ME?! I am not the one who made up the policy. The other guy told you; go ahead and start a forum if you want change! This discussion is long-finished, so discussing it here won't do any good. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 19:34, May 17, 2013 (UTC) No, you don't seem to get it. The discussion is not over until one of the sides backs down, which I don't intend on doing. The fact you're bringing up the discussion's end speaks for itself that you're running out of arguments. This piece of "useless" trivia is the very essence of the entire archetype, and you're trying to terminate it! That's not what Takahashi would want!--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:42, May 17, 2013 (UTC) No, it isn't the essence of the Numbers' Trivia because it's worthless crap. In fact, I don't see any reason for you to defend it. Also, it's not true that assumption is completely forbidden. If the assumption is likely enough, then you can post it. As the other user put it quite clearly, the meaning in Numbers holds a creative value. These kinds of trivia hold no such thing. That's why they aren't likely enough. Unless you can think of a reason why it has this number that also holds some sort of creative value, the deletion will remain. And, also, if you really believe that this kind of trivia is worthwhile, then post this on a forum. Not here! The policy is already in place. You cannot revert it on this page only. Your only option is to suggest a change on the forums for admins to see. Unless you do that, then you cannot possibly, " make you restore this and all other Number trivias if it's the last damn thing I do!" 190.124.165.194 (talk) 19:51, May 17, 2013 (UTC) You're just trying to get rid of me, aren't you? The moment I hit the forums you'll begin an all-out campaign against it. It's the main fact THAT the Numbers get their values accordingly to the order in which they're released that makes THIS trivia so creative. THAT is why it is likely enough, and THAT aloneis enough reason to keep it alive. Face it, you're not deleting this knowledge because it's a part of some misunderstood policy, you're just doing it because it's a soar in YOUR eyes.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 19:58, May 17, 2013 (UTC) It's a sore in everyone else's eyes, too. Policy is policy, and a line has to be drawn somewhere with Trivia.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 20:10, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Then what else did you expect within that section? If it wasn't information like this, perhaps the entire section is misnamed and should not be named "trivia" at all. This card IS the 4th rank 7 Number monster, anyone can conclude that by now. Like it or not, this is the only explanation for why this monster is a Number 74, and not 76 or any other Number.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 20:14, May 17, 2013 (UTC) The "Trivia" link appears for all cards, we don't "expect" anything to be within them. We made a decision to remove Trivia is it's not notable; numerical assertions on the order of cards doesn't fit the type of trivia that we want to encourage. I consider this matter closed.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 20:46, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Then what exactly will Wikia Contributors contribute with if whatever link they notice will be deleted immediately? If that's the case, the Edit button is superflous.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 20:53, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Please stop adding baseless trivia to the other Trivia pages. It will be treated as vandalism. Also, not every edit is undone. Just the unlikely and worthless ones. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 20:58, May 17, 2013 (UTC) It was vandalism that I was undoing.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 21:01, May 17, 2013 (UTC) You don't have the policy to back you up. So, yours is vandalism. You already started a discussion on the forum, so wait for replies, and maybe you'll effect a change in the policy. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 21:02, May 17, 2013 (UTC) .................. Fine! Explain to me then, what is "trivia"?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 21:04, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Yeah, the policy you keep referring to, what does it specifically say about "trivia", because I am not gonna back down either. NMBRHNTR64 (talk • contribs) 21:07, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Trivia, in our case, is used to refer to origins, appearance in other artworks, name origins, accomplishments of the card (only if it is the first), etc. All of these points are bound by a certain policy. The name origin, in this case, isn't known, and your theory doesn't fit the established standards. I posted the link to the discussion about trivia a while back. Read that! 190.124.165.194 (talk) 21:09, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Just cease this discussion immediately, before TTF blow this to the hellhole. --iFredCat 21:10, May 17, 2013 (UTC) You're already violating our own rules by being impolite. Fine, we may not prove that Blaster's fish is based on the archerfish or that Number 74 is named so for being 4th out of 7, but you know what? You can neither prove it's false. That gives you no right to question it's validity.--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 21:14, May 17, 2013 (UTC) The burden of proof lies with you to prove the validity, not for us to disprove it (although we've done that many times). Once again, I have to wonder why this is continuing, because the page has already been deleted. You've already lost. Get over it, you're making a nuisance out of yourself.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 21:19, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Don't get us wrong. It isn't just because it's not confirmed. We also question its validity and worth because it holds no creative value. Therefore, I conclude that the creator wouldn't stoop to such a low level as to base this number according to a numerical order. 190.124.165.194 (talk) 21:21, May 17, 2013 (UTC) It's the numerical order deciding the Number that MAKES it so creative. They carefully managed the order of published cards just to fill in the spots in the Number's grid. If you took part in designing the Numbers, wouldn't you do the same?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 21:25, May 17, 2013 (UTC) And by the way, if I have lost, how come numbers of those supporting my side keeps increasing instead of falling?--Hawk00Refferencer (talk • contribs) 21:27, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Hawk00Refferencer, you don't seem to understand what I meant by "I consider this matter closed". The discussion is over (that goes for you as well, Master D, loathe that I am agreeing with you on this matter). If you want to submit that this policy be re-examined, we have forums to air this. This particular discussion is over; next one to continue it will wind up with an enforced holiday from editing.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 21:29, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)