Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh!, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yu-Gi-Oh! on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Yu-Gi-Oh! To-do:
This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Is this a good place to put in the official rules? An original piece, not copied from the Namco Official Rule Book?

Generally, no, as there is a tendency for them to grow over time, and they can never be complete. I would say that a basic definition of the card types, special terms unique to this game, and turn structure would be about all you need. What we can't do is re-post the official rules using the exact wording. If you keep it high-level, you should be fine. I've re-organized the headings, so you can probably work on the Game play section.
By the way, welcome to Wikipedia, hope you'll decide to create an account. -- Netoholic @ 14:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What if someone just put a link to the official rules (specific card rulings, list of erratas/corrections, and forbidden/limited cards) somewhere on the page? That way we'd not be taking copyrighted information, the link would be quite relevent, and there would be little (if any) advertisements. --Smokeresearcher 08:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Difficulty

Does anyone else think this game is more complicated than "moderate" and its rule complexity is tougher than "low"? I can't count how many kids I see confused, almost to the point of tears, because they don't understand the rules or why they are getting beat. I've reverted a bunch of weasel words and vandalism lately and would rather not chance the 3-revert rule right now. I admit, the strategies are getting a little lesser for most upper-level decks due to conformity, but if you are in the game for something other than money and have decent experience, then you've probably built some interesting and very strategic decks (at least I have). The rules are anything but complicated. Also, the IP (67.162.131.120) who edited this changed Magic's complexity to "high". Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic are fairly similar and hardly that far appart in difficulty (by perspective, one may be harder for someone, but not a polar opposite). --Smokeresearcher 07:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's supossed to be High and High from what I remember; someone just edited it to moderate and nobody noticed. I changed it back to High and High, since anymore every card has 20 rulings tied to it. It's just some annoying people trying to make themselves feel better by belitting others. Kalajin 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly noticed (right about when it happened), but to someone who doesn't understand the game it's not an obvious case of vandalism. That IP has been focusing on TCGs and at around the same time changed Magic's difficulty in the opposite direction (I'm guessing a Magic player who doesn't like Yu-Gi-Oh much more than the recent vandals). I didn't want to chance getting kicked off (there have been a lot of edit wars lately with people reverting vandalism in pages I'm watching), so I posted it here. Thanks. --Smokeresearcher 04:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I may be a little biased because I play Magic, but Yu-Gi-Oh certainly seems complex to me. Although many situations are taken care of in the rule book, some of them require "common sense" that has no place in card games with so many combinations. For example, an attacker dealing no damage is considered have not even attacked for card effects. You end up having to get familiar with specific rulings just to understand how cards work (not a lot, but enough to be annoying). I've been a judge of complex games, and just because the cards' effects are verbose doesn't make it simple. Ok, done with rant. -- Organous 14:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • As a Yu-Gi-Oh judge, I actually agree with the above poster that it is in fact a very complicated game. Unfortunately, Konami don't translate their cards all that clearly, often leading to cards whose effects are not entirely clear. UDE are making headway into making this a less common practice, but there are still a number of difficulties regarding cards with ambiguous text. Yes, the game is pretty simple to pick up at a very basic level, but you would have a hard time teaching a 9-year-old how to use (for example) a Diamond Dude Turbo deck.

[edit] Common Terminology

This is very out of place, and takes up about 20% of the entire article. I suggest either having a link to it's own seperate place, or possibly finding a Card Game terminology article, and plopping it there. --141.151.14.3 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The same thing could probably be said about the whole article. It's really bloated and jumbled; someone needs to spend a whole day re-vamping it. (That will probably include about 4 or 5 different pages being split off to keep the file size down.)

And, quoting Neoholic from 8 Sep 2004,

By the way, welcome to Wikipedia, hope you'll decide to create an account. Kalajin 17:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested (see Common Terminology) to move that section to place in a new page, due to the fact that it makes the whole article lengthy. Before it is moved, I'd like to ask you guys if it is agreed upon. Please respond ASAP. DiamondDragon 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have anything against it. It'd probably keep clutter down. Go ahead, if you want. Kalajin 00:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Now moved Common Terminology section. Please notfify of any problems. DiamondDragon 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested deletion

I removed the link to the article, Starter Deck - Special Edition: Duel Master's Guide. Said article should be deleted, as none of the other starter/structure decks have (or need) an article. --TheRockBoS 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to vote, but I agree that the article should be delete. We should not put "card list" with effect. Plus, the infos are copy and paste from somewhere else anyway. Baron 17:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor writing in some sections

There has been a slew of people who use poor spelling and grammer when putting up new information; the terms/decks sections in particular. I've marked the article for cleanup until this is dealt with. --TheRockBoS 12:54, 08 March 2006

Well, it's impossible to stop some 12-15 yos to put things on there that don't make any sense (And have absolutely no grammar). Not to mention, the "glossary" (Which I already clean up a little bit by listing them alphabetically) has some terms that're either non-worthy to be on there or is just redundant. --Ion475 04:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to copy and paste the text into my Microsoft Word for spell check, then correct any errors. DiamondDragon 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with people posting completely unconfirmed information / Japanese sets information

Well, I just deleted the section for SD9 due to it being an absolutely NONCONFIRM information (No official info, all "information" are pure rumor, no source, etc.)

Also, I notice on 90% of the Japanese set that people are purely copying translation from various translation site (i.e. DMComet) and are not in "wiki format" at all - what exactly should be done to those?? --Ion475 06:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited the strategy to High from the original "Medium". This is a game that can takes hours or days to build a good deck. I believe strategy is the msot important aspect of the game. ~Ice_cold_blizzard

[edit] How detailed should we go?

I added the further description of the Monster, Magic, and Trap cards, but just how far should we go? Should I also add in for instance the types of effect monsters or whatever? Seeing how above you said we shouldn't copy from the rulebook, how much detail can we have until it is considered copying from the rulebook? (Unsigned)

Should we perhaps have a "Yu-Gi-Oh in brief" section that would include just the basics of gameplay? I think we could use a section like this for important gameplay aspects without any specific exceptions. Then there might be more room for detail elsewhere in the article. 216.238.204.109 19:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A parody

I just noticed that this section from the Champions of Kamigawa Magic set article tells that the Yu-Gi-Oh! card game was based off a parody from Magic: The Gathering seen in the manga. Is that true? It doesn't sound very right to me. And if it is, I think the word "parody" wouldn't work well there, unless the intention of the author was really to make a parody out of that creation. Also, that same section says that a big objection was that the "Japanese setting has been 'done to death'", by games such as Yu-Gi. Not only that alone sounds weird to me, but also... I never thought that genre was overdone. What is overdone, specially in Magic, are European themes. Norse and Greek mythology. "European fantasy", if I might say that. Until some time ago, that is all Magic was ever based on, with the exception of stuff like that Arabian Nights expansion. As for Yu-Gi-Oh, I never saw many monsters themed after the Japanese folklore. There are some cards like that, but not enough to make things "done to death". Even less in Pokémon.

Looks like this post is more of a rant than a remark about something from an article, but any opinions on this would be appreciated. Thank you.--Kaonashi 04:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Magic & Wizards was the neame of the game that Yuugi and Seto originally played in the Manga. The rules were a simplified version of M:tG, but the themes were different.
Also, the rules released in Japan with the Starter Box were effectively a simplified version of M:tG --BBM 22:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • According to Kazuki, the name Magic & Wizard DOES come from Magic: The Gathering (I think this is stated on Yu-Gi-Oh page) --129.116.25.159 02:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the rules released in Japan with the Starter Box were effectively a simplified version of M:tG

  • Is there any information on these rules? A translated version, perhaps? Or is it just referring to the similarities between Duel Monsters and M:tG?

[edit] Magic/Spell Lawsuit

Should this page mention in the section under Spell Cards the fact that they were called Magic cards until Wizards threatened to use legal action against Konami? I don't think I've seen it anywhere else on Wikipedia, or anything... a link to it would be appropriate.

Yes, of course. Any proof? Riddle | Talk 01:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This so-called lawsuit is merely a myth; there is not sufficient evidence to prove there was ever a lawsuit, or even a threat of one by Wizards of the Coast. Kenjiblade 24:10, 9 November 2005

  • Sorry for the late reply but. From what I remember on the website they said they changed it to Spells for story reasons and something else, but not sure what though. Greyhead 21:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone again add the "lawsuit" thing back onto the page (and of course, deleted by me). Although the reason is still unknown, I'm 100% sure that the change is not resuit of a lawsuit.Baron 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The story goes that there was an advertsiment on TV for a Yu-Gi-Oh tournament where it said that you could use "your Magic cards". According to the myth, some M:TG plaers turned up, and got angry.


[edit] Merging Volumes

User:Tabor suggested that Volume 2 be merged with the main Yu-Gi-Oh! Article. I don't think it's necessary (or a good idea), because 1this article is already 36 KB, and 2if it were a good idea to merge Volume 2 into this article, then what's the reason not to merge all of the booster pack lists into this article? --BBM 23:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Deck-bundled Official Rulebooks

I have a Version 2.0 Rulebook bundled with Starter Deck Yugi and a Version 5.0 Rulebook bundled with Structure Deck Warrior's Triumph. Was there a 1.0 English rulebook? The boxes both feature Konami promenently and so do most materials, though on the back of both boxes Upper Deck is mentioned. The 2.0 Rulebook says on the back that Pat 5,662,332 is used under license from Wizards of the Coast. It also uses Magic as the term for the cards. 5.0 uses Spells. In 2.0, while the phrase "Trading Card Game is used on the front and in the Foreward, throughout the rulebook the game is just referred to as Yu-Gi-Oh!, but in 5.0 the phrase "Trading Card Game" is used throughout. The mat included with SDY says "Magic", the mat included with SDWT says "Spell" Hackwrench 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This reply might be a little late but here's a run down of the rule book versions. Version 1 was bundled with the first starter decks and version 2 was bundled in later printings of the first two decks. Version 3 was placed into the Joey and Pegasus decks but mostly just changed the pictures of cards in rule book and had Joey on the cover. Verion 4 was bundeled with the Evolution decks and mainly changed pictures again. Version 5 is the most current version that is bundled with all Structure Decks so far and has nobody on the cover. Greyhead 17:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! card lists

Just wanted to point out this proposal. Please make your voice be heard! I proposed putting it off, pending the AfD reform proposal outcome. Hackwrench 21:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article WAY too long??

Well, it seems like, no matter what, the article is being WAY too long.--Ion475 22:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe we should put the cards sets on a seperate page? Including the decks. Greyhead 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Greyhead. This article is way too long, and the set list are the #1 problem. Baron 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well then may i add something.THIS ARTICLE TELLS NOTHING ON THE SPECIAL EDITIONS!Its possible we could make it into sections like 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.I'll create a Special Edition section.HurricaneCraze32 22:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I went ahead split the card sets onto the article Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets but it needs some work and I was wondering whether we should place the decks into the article? Greyhead 17:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We should rework the Set sub-page before adding the decks into the article. In addition, I feel that the countries should have separate page since it's a LONG list. Baron 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Infos, Rules

1. I have a question on the infobox...is this game REALLY 6 and up? 2. Should the "Game Play" section be shorten (not to put the whole rulebook on here)? Baron 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Countries

Personally I think that the "Countries" section is completly irrelevant to the article and would be an easy cull..

Please sign your posts with four tildes. Legendotphoenix 10:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure Decks

I have noticed that the structure deck list shows some structure decks that have not been released yet. How do you know about the future ones? I saw one website with a brief description of the machine structure deck (http://yugioh.tcgplayer.com), but I do not know of any others. Nate 17:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Players

The names of some of the people in the "Notable Players" section do not have pages for them. The links are red. Please fix that, either by creating their own pages, or by removing the links. Nate 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the notable players section is that is is a very subjective matter: is there an arbitrary way of separating the notable for the normal? The other problem is that creating them each an article is that there is very little to say about each one: it would mostly be "so-and-so won such-and-such a tornament. So-and-so enjoys playing such-and-such a deck...", and maybe a link to a press release regarding their win. As an occasional player of the TCG (like most who read this article, I would imagine) I don't really care who wins the World Championship (unless of course I know him, which I don't), and there are plenty of fan sites out there to have imformation like this on them. We therefore don't really need the section, but I'd like a consensus before it gets removed, to avoid replacement. Setokaiba✌≝ 10:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the World Champion can be just kept on there as, well, they're World Champion. Otherwise, it's impossible to determine who is notable as no matter how "famous" one is, chances are, 90% of the people that play the game never heard of his name.--Ion 17:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Someone could add pictures of the different attributes, fire, wind, earth, dark, light, and water. Nate 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Exodia Picture

Should we really use the Head of Exodia as an example picture for a card? I think we should follow suit of the M:tG and VS. articles and use the offical back of a card. Either that or the text describing the card needs to be changed. Looking at that gives the impression that the game is solely about gathering those 5 pieces and winning. I think using the back of a card would be more formal and suitable. Anyone else agree? Xiivi 07:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Exodia is not used much at all anyway. Nate | Talk Esperanza! 14:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote on a different card than actually showing the back; the back is just too dull to look at than see the front of a card. But I'm in agreement that Exodia shouldn't be the picture on the top. Glenn Browne 14:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Deltaneos 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you two are saying, however, if you look through the past you'll notice other cards have been used as the main picture. So it seems rather pointless to change it to yet another card, just for someone else to disagree and suggest a new card. So changing it wouldn't get us anywhere. Using the back would be more stable, not to mention it's universal for all Yu-Gi-Oh cards. Using a monster card doesn't apply to spells or traps, whilst the back is suitable to represent all three. Furthermore, using the back for card game articles in general would be a good trend to keep all wikipedia articles on the same page. That's my reasoning for suggesting the back of the card.Xiivi 03:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand your arguement too but Glenn's right, the back is too dull. Also it's not a great representation of the card game with the logos tucked away in the corners. They should be centered like the on the cover of the ruleook included in the structure decks. Deltaneos 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The back has no outstanding features, such as the Pokemon logo on the Pokemon TCG cards. And so what if someone may dislike the card choice to represent the article; as long as a majority of the people accept it, then it would be fine. As for what I would suggest, I truely have no idea... DiamondDragon 07:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be Dark Magician, not only does it have notoriety as Yugi's favorite card, but it has three alternate artworks. Not every card even has one alternate. --Phred Levi 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OCG Tin 2007

Should I take it down or add the other ones to it in a new OCG Tin section? First, it says TCG release unknown, when it WON'T come out in America. The Japanese tin is only one tin with an ultimate rare. Secondly, we hardly have any OCG stuff up on this page. Manjoume Thunder 22:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

It appears there's been some vandalism on this page. --64.230.123.89 00:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially in the "card edits" section where the featured cards in a list are not even real cards and link to random items like South Park and Camp Lalzo characters67.165.54.93 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has anyone...

...Heard of this contest?--69.166.252.152


Please sign your posts with four tildes.

Anyways, what does this have to do with the TCG? The card might be in a future set, but that's about it Kalajin 04:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, someone told me about it. I beleive that the winner of the contest will get his/her entry published into a real card, get their card sent to them, and the card will be available in a 2007 booster. Now don't tell me this is lying.--69.166.252.152 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The contest happaned, the cards were released in the set Gladiators Assault. Tongue Twister was one of them I believe. More info on this can be found on the Yugioh Wiki. --HungryJacks (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Material?

this site has lots of pictures of card edits, do you think it can be used as a reference to the section on how cards are edited? --Phred Levi 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Average playing time

Can we get an actual time for how long a typical game takes? Surely everyone knows that game time would vary, as most games of all kinds have no set time limit. However, we can still use how long the average game takes. At the very least, we can use the time limit set for official tournaments. Organous 03:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Good call. I believe the recommended round (best of 3) time is 40 mins. The length of a duel can vary greatly between different deck archetypes, anything from 5 mins to an hour can be expected, but and average game time would probably be in the region of 10 mins, with about 30 mins for a match average Captain Carrot 10:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


  • After a quick glance through Yugioh tournament policy , there is no offical time limit on Standard Yu-Gi-Oh tournament matches(Best of 3)However, Tournament Games normally have time limits of 30 to 40 minutes for the entire match , depending on time restraints by the organizer.*Lozmaster 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I have a friend who beats people in around 5 minutes so it can go below 10 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiger23 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Players ordering

The list of notable players has been reordered, but I'm not sure that ordering them by region is necessarily the best way to go with it. Would it not be more sensible to list them alphabetically? Captain Carrot 10:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess so; I reordered them myself, but if you think it's needed, I'll reorder it again. By alphabetically, do you mean the first or last names? DiamondDragon contact 16:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I would think last name would be appropriate, first name would just look strange.Captain Carrot 09:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Vandalism

Here. --69.107.87.208 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how the link you provided is vandalism. Perhaps you typed in the wrong link? Legendotphoenix 10:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ygoedit.jpg

Image:Ygoedit.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yu-Gi-Oh! Online article

I just noticed the Yu-Gi-Oh! Online article was deleted (July 21). The reasons for deletion were

  • 1) It failed WP:NOT. How? Can somebody explain what was wrong with the article?
  • 2) It failed WP:WEB. Nonsense. Quoting WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
Also, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster": Yu-Gi-Oh! Online was first distributed with Weekly Shonen Jump in Japan.

Not only that, the result of the AfD discussion was merge. All I see on this page is a simple link to the YO website.

I think we should bring back the article.VDZ 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • 1) I don't see it in WP:NOT either. I think it's supposed to be WP:NOTE instead: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • 2) I believe it does fail WP:WEB. From your quote: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." You've also forgotten another criteria: "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Gamerdad, Gamezone, Gamewatch, and monkaru.dip.jp don't seem to satisfy this criteria and severely hurt their reliability. I feel I'm wrong here though.
I think that it's mainly because it's not all that important for an article. I've barely heard of it, and I don't hear of others playing the game. Instead on using YO, they've preferred YVD. DiamondDragon DESU 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Quoting WP:WEB again, "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section". It meets two, so it should be notable. Also, the "website or content" refers to Yu-Gi-Oh! Online, not the sources (that would be odd, since only 1 of the criteria is necessary).
There are a lot of YO players (at least there were when I played it), especially in Japan. The English and Japanese servers both had about 300-500 players on them at the same time. Add another 100-300 for other language servers, and you'll see that some people do play Yu-Gi-Oh! Online.VDZ
I see. To tell you the truth, I have no clue why that it was deleted. I have a small feeling that it's not suitable to have an article, but I'm unsure. See if you could find an answer from someone else. Sorry I can't help. DiamondDragon DESU 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Article recreated. Further discussion can take place at its talk page.VDZ 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review VDZ 09:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yu-Gi-Oh! Online article

So why is the Yu-Gi-Oh! Online article still deleted? Because of DiamondDragon's personal opinion that he hadn't "heard" of the game? I imagine there's a great many people who have never "heard" of Nikola Tesla; should we delete that article too? I'm really confused here.

Yu-Gi-Oh! Online is a separate and valid entity with its own play mechanics, rules and quarterly tournaments with special prizes. At the very least, Yu-Gi-Oh! Online deserves a section in the main article (though it would be a lengthy one), but it would appear even that is being blocked here. What's the problem here? Is it some personal vendetta against the online game? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DBHughes (talk • contribs) 09:55, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

The Yu-Gi-Oh! Online article is still deleted because because of my personal opinion? Last time I checked, personal opinion had little effect on whether an article exists or not; the article was deleted although I never put any input into the deletion discussion. If you believe that there should be one, by all means go ahead. Besides, my opinion shouldn't the only one that matters. And I'm just one person. DiamondDragon DESU 02:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Check the Deletion Review. Although effectively deleted, it was officialy 'merged'. And because they call it 'merging' instead of 'deleting', we can't undelete it. Whatever they say, Wikipedia IS a bureaucracy. VDZ 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Rare

In the Card Rarity section, for ghost rare, it reads, Ghost Rare(stolen from Yu Yu card game, they should be sued). I don't know about wiki rules, but this doesn't belong, right? 74.119.166.88 03:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The occult and "most" Christians

"Due to their imagery, they were considered occult, mainly by Catholics and most other Christians."

Besides the fact that the entire occult section of the article carries no citation; this statement, as it is written, is religiously biased and carries false implications. Those Christians, Catholic or otherwise, who believe a commercially produced card game (or a video game, or an anime) to be a magic practice are a sensationalist minority (and many would argue, the antithesis of their alleged faith). While I cannot vouch for the state of things in Latin America, the article doesn't specify a region at this point (nor would I think it wise to generalize based on region anyway).

I have a Christian family, as do several of my friends, and no friend or family member I know considers Pokemon, DBZ, or YuGiOh to be an occult practice (I maintain an interest in all three, and have thus far sparked no controversy). My mother, an ordained minister, sees nothing wrong with my brother and I playing a few rounds of Duel Monsters. If anything she appreciates the fact that we have something to do together. Hypershell (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scaling

Should a paragraph on Scaling be added to the Controversy area of this article? Recently a video on how to scale on Youtube has brought the attention of a lot of people in the Yugioh online community and a representative from UDE have expressed the video be removed. The video can be viewed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K80WpD-vA-M

And the views of the rep from UDE can be viewed here:

http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=514302

Thoughts anyone? --HungryJacks (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

i have some tips for a dino deck: .make sure you have tyranno infinity,if you remove from play as many dinosaurs as you can (and want)your tyranno gains 1000 atk points for each one.

.use a dinosaur field spell to boost atk and def points up. .when your opponent has a card that has a bigger def than 3300 and super conductor tyranno is on the field use its effect to take 1000 life points of your opponent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.194.0 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Heroes GX

Yu-Gi-Oh can suck Michael Jackson's bleached dick! Energy Heroes GX is new and better!

You see, my cousin made a TCG, Energy Heroes GX, due out Sept. 15, 2008. It will be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.146.112 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)



i would have to disagree yugioh is the funnest card game i have ever played and i think "Energy Heroes GX" can suck Michael Jordans bleached dick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiger23 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Team Duelling

Team Duelling is no longer an unofficial variant, as UDE has released a PDF rule-list for it on the Yu-Gi-Oh! website. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ygoedit.jpg

Image:Ygoedit.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bandai

Didnt bandai own duel monsters card game before konami did?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeatGuyRed (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most Commonly-Used Types of Card Formations and OCG/TCG War

Removed that part of the "Controversy" section of the article, because - despite what Jujube believes - a difference in what deck types people like to play is not a controversy; that is what is called diversity in the game.

Also, Jujube has repeatedly deleted two articles I attempted to add in its place: one detailing the split between the Asian OCG and western TCG games (which is very much known by both sides and has been argued for several years), and Konami's recent practices in altering the Ban/Restriction list to steer the game towards a more aggressive metagame, as well as their attempts to push the cards of certain anime characters (like Jaden's Elemental Heroes) on the players over cards the fans are wanting (like Bastion's Magnet Warriors), and their habit of creating new, self-contained deck types with each set, only to drop them shortly thereafter. Jujube argues that this is all "personal analysis", but that is impossible; as stated, the argument over the split between the two versions of the game has been raging for years among fans (and has grown exponentially thanks to UDE's active attempt to widen the distance between the two versiosn with their additions and modifications to the TCG, an act that UDE has admitted to doing themselves for that very reason), and anyone who has played the game can surely see what Konami has been doing. This isn't "bias", this is just facts that I'm trying to present in a non biased light. So why is it that every time I or someone else posts it up, it gets struck down as "original research"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.188.231 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm leaving that section removed because it was badly spelled and, as you said, added nothing to the article. But your addition violated two Wikipedia policies (WP:OR and WP:NPOV) and had an obvious bias. Get together some reliable sources, change the tone of your writing and don't make suppositions. JuJube (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute about Controversy section

I believe 66.233.188.231 (talk · contribs)'s additions to the Controversy section constitute original research, show a clear bias and break the WP:NPOV policy. I have suggested that he add some sources and rewrite the section with neutrality but he has just reinserted the section, adding even more OR. Not wishing to get into an edit war, I have requested an uninvolved admin's pair of eyes and commentary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JuJube (talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 February 2008

I agree with you that the controversy section is in need of cleanup, trimming and/or rewriting to meet Wikipedia's WP:V policy. The entire section lacks reliable sources. The last two sections, Metagame and Deck Types and OCG vs. TCG, are particularly problematic in that they present large swathes of analysis and opinions without providing any supporting references. --Muchness (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the section should go back to the way it was before anony's edits. JuJube (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that unless the section is completely rewritten from a neutral point of view and with citations, it should be removed altogether. It represents a negative view on the matters. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Blue-Eyes White Dragon.jpg

The image Image:Blue-Eyes White Dragon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)