Bulbapedia talk:Project TCG/Archive/1

You're officially hurting my head

... okay. We need to start coming to some sort of a consensus on the articles on the individual cards. We have too many naming conventions, just for starters - we have ones named with a set abbreviation and number, like Blastoise (BS002), we have ones named with an unabbreviated set and number, like Spoink (EX Dragon 73), we have ones named just by set, like Bill (Base Set), and then we have ones which are just labeled as 'TCG', such as ones where it applies to a lot of things and thus makes sense, like Fire (TCG), and ones where it does not apply to a lot of things and thus is more debatable, like Double Colorless Energy (TCG). And for each naming convention, we have a notable number of cards following the convention. This is unacceptable, people. You hurt my head and make it difficult for me to have any idea how to organize things. Let's pick one convention - and only one convention - for all the cards out there and stick with it. Please. --Pie 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Negative. The problem is, with the older sets, the number is redundant, since there are few cards with the same name (i.e. same Pokémon). The newer sets, however, like to do that. On top of that, the number creates an artificial distinction between holographic and normal cards. Then you have the energy cards which appear in all the sets. So - at least three schemes are required. - 振霖_T 00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, I'm sure we could at least cut it down to at least two, with only one for the majority of the cards - numbers may be redundant with older sets, but there's no reason why we couldn't have them anyway just to keep things to a standard - standards make things so much easier to organize, and people are numbering the cards in the old sets anyway, just differently. And then there's the (TCG) convention, which, sure, could apply to the basic energy cards, much like other things which are global TCG-wise - but the special energy cards could do without them, I'm sure. --Pie 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I think we can do this

How does this work for the disambig policy?

• All cards, except for energy cards (which are all common and similar enough to just get a TCG tag) will get a TCG ID tag, identifying the set and number of the card.
• In the case that there is only one card of a certain name in the whole TCG, the "Name (TCG)" name will redirect to that single card.
• In the case that there is multiple cards of a certain name in the whole TCG (which is extremely common, as I'm sure you guys know), the "Name (TCG)" name will be a disambig among all the different cards.
• In the case that there is both theme decks and cards of a certain name in the whole TCG (which occurs several time in Gym Heroes and Gym Challenge), the "Name (TCG)" name will be a theme deck, with a separate disambig page for cards with the same name.
• Reprint cards, such as those in Base Set 2, do not get their own articles. Links should be directed to the original card article, with a redirect from the reprint set name and number.

Any problems with this? It's not simple - but with so many cards with so many of the same names, it's necessary, I'd say. --Pie 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, if you ask me, reprint cards should get their own articles. Also, there are the Game Boy TCG sets, which distributed cards into sets with mixtures of cards from different real sets, along with some Game Boy exclusive cards. I believe the two TCG Game Boy games also had different in-game sets from one another. There are also Japanese-exclusive promo cards that were never numbered. There were also some specially marked cards like the prerelease cards, Pokémon Center marked cards, and Winner symbol cards, odd things like the gold-bordered Jungle Meowth... Oh, and there were some sets of unnumbered promo energy cards too.

As for other things related to the project, the format for the cards could use some working on. Maybe a picture of the whole card instead of the way it is now, to leave more room for other information and make things a bit easier. Also, the earlier sets had Pokédex entries on them, which should be included. Other than that, there are a lot of obscure Japanese-only promo cards out there, and it would be nice to get information on them. -Happy Mask Man 03:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I really think that we've got more than enough without articles for reprints. I do think, though, that there's no reason why the original card articles can have a subsection for the reprints. And odd things are being organized as much as possible already, I think. ^^o

Format could totally use an overhaul. If you're up for it, by all means, go for it. My involvement in the TCGDex doesn't extend much further than naming and organization, since I do stuff like that for all of Bulbapedia - the project could use some devoted workers. --Pie 03:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(Well, I also made the logo, too. But that was purely for fun. ^^o) --Pie 03:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been thinking over the article naming scheme... I'm thinking that we should use levels instead of set numbers for the older sets that had them. Also, the E-cards should use the ID number that has a letter and a number, seeing as how those stay the same between Japanese and English cards. I'm not too sure what to do for the sets past then, but I think it would be best to use naming schemes that are universal between the Japanese and English cards, to make it easier to deal with differences between the way the sets are set up. As for the article format, I'm working on that a bit right now. It's not really done, but you can get the gist of what it'll look like here. I'm not the best at formatting things, so it's not quite polished up yet. But hey, it's got to be better than the current one, right? -Happy Mask Man 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the levels will really work out the disambiguating issue very well; I mean, the only thing we can guarantee cards to have is a set and an English set number. And at least our current method makes it easy to write out the lists in the set articles. I think those articles as well as the Search will make up the difference for those more familiar with the Japanese version (and plus, we're more associated with the English version of everything). However, I do like what you're starting to do with the article format, definitely. It'll need linking in the infobox, but it's a good adaptation of the template we use the most to the TCG style. --Pie 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, some cards only appear in one version of a set, like say, Japanese Fossil set's Mew and English Team Rocket set's Dark Raichu. Since set numbers are set up differently in Japanese and English cards, it would be hard to fit in one of those cards if we used identification that only one language has, whether it be English or Japanese. See, it's not an issue of people who are more familiar with a certain language version, but one of keeping article names universal within a set, while still being able to deal with cards that only appear in one version of a set. -Happy Mask Man 08:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Care to join...?

This may be the wrong place to ask, but would any of you TCG people care to join Project Decks? You can read about it on the link, and for a couple of good examples of our deck pages, check out Raieggs and Haymaker. It would be great to have some new members, and you don't even need to know about decks that are currently tournament legal:) Just ask on the talk page or add your name to the participants list here: Project Decks.

Politoed666 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

May I join?

May I join this Project? I really like the TCG and have cards enough to do card pages. --Netto-kun 22:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since no one listens, I'll put my name in the page. --Netto-kun File:Ani394MS.gif 10:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much anyone can join any project. They just have to be prepared for any exasperated arm waving there might be if they miss a minor detail... TTEchidna 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

PrevNext?

Would it be a good or bad idea to do a PrevNext thing for the cards within a set, with, of course, multiple ones for cards that were reprinted. Now, of course, I don't mean something like EpisodePrevNext that spans the bottom of the page, but maybe like I have it in the infobox...

And I was also wondering... should we categorize the cards in their sets by the number? I mean, like, for Charizard, categorizing it as a Base Set card and using its card number as its order, so it'd fall between Chansey and Clefairy. We'd have to do it as [[Category:Base Set cards|004]] so as to keep them in line... eh, what's everyone think? Is the name-based one easier to look at? TTEchidna 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I liked the PrevNext thing. It's a good idea to use. -- File:Ani154MS.gifNetto-kunFile:Ani394MS.gif 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Project TCGDex notice

The Project TCGDex notice is ruining the articles with it, because most of the doesn't have a <br clear="all"> and it is ruining with the Infobox. See Pidgeotto (EX FireRed & LeafGreen 45). This needs to be fixed in almost every page. -- File:Ani154MS.gifNetto-kunFile:Ani394MS.gif 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

just add the br clearall to the template {{:User:Jason/sig}} 00:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied and Pasted Information

I really think it needs to be clear that if any of you guys copy and paste lists from TCG websites, you do some fact checking to make sure it's all right. Some very large and popular ocean-themed TCG sites intentionally put errors all over the place. So if you're going to "borrow" information at least be sure everything is correct. Just thought you guys would like to know.

~~peace dawgz~~ --Porygon 05:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)