Talk:Pokémon Trading Card Game: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
[[User:Plau|Plau]] | [[User:Plau|Plau]] | ||
Disagree. The numbering is superfluous for the early set - and causes problems with cards with holo/non-holo numbers. Format should be: <sc>title</sc> (<sc>set name</sc>) or <sc>title</sc> (<set name</sc> <sc>number</sc>), without zero-padding for the number. | Disagree. The numbering is superfluous for the early set - and causes problems with cards with holo/non-holo numbers. Format should be: <sc>title</sc> (<sc>set name</sc>) or <sc>title</sc> (<sc>set name</sc> <sc>number</sc>), without zero-padding for the number. | ||
Then - there is the matter of page layout. While making it look like a card is very interesting, it leaves a lot to be desired. There is no content left for the main text area, and not all the information is visible at a glance. - [[User:Zhen Lin|振霖]]<sub>[[User talk:Zhen Lin|T]]</sub> 06:20, 13 February 2006 (CST) | Then - there is the matter of page layout. While making it look like a card is very interesting, it leaves a lot to be desired. There is no content left for the main text area, and not all the information is visible at a glance. Set it out as an infobox, with all the important information in the box, and all the extra information - flavour text and such - in the main article text. - [[User:Zhen Lin|振霖]]<sub>[[User talk:Zhen Lin|T]]</sub> 06:20, 13 February 2006 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 12:21, 13 February 2006
On the set pages themselves, a card listing would be nice.... =D surskitty 21:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
>That would be nice, but remember that we don't know yet how we're going to list the cards in the first place. Should we list them by individual card - so that all the say, different Pikachu cards have their own pages? If we do that, how do we differentiate them in the title? Level? That works for the earlier sets, but Level isn't listed on newer ones. Do we do it by expansion? What about Pokemon who have multiple cards within the same expansion, such as Houndour? It's a very complicated thing, and I wish someone would make a final decision on it. - Zeta
>I figure, for the English sets at least, why not use the numbering system used there? Like Base Alakazam is 1/102... surskitty 01:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
>>I'm thinking NAME (SET) (number). And the (number) part would only be if it's needed. For example, if there's a Wingull in the Wingulpwnz set, the page name would be "Wingull (Wingulpwnz)". If there are two Hoppip in the same set, though, they would be named "Hoppip (Wingulpwnz) (40)" and "Hoppip (Wingulpwnz) (41)", with "Hoppip (Wingulpwnz)" being a disambig. Ketsuban 04:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Naming System
I think the naming system should be NAME (SETNUM)
- NAME is the name of the Pokémon
- SET is the 2 letter / 3 letter abbrivation of the set
- NUM is the card number, e.g. 4/102 = 004
Examples
- Alakazam (BS001)
- Blastoise (BS002)
- Chansey (BS003)
- Charizard (BS004)
- Clefairy (BS005)
- Gyarados (BS006)
Disagree. The numbering is superfluous for the early set - and causes problems with cards with holo/non-holo numbers. Format should be: title (set name) or title (set name number), without zero-padding for the number.
Then - there is the matter of page layout. While making it look like a card is very interesting, it leaves a lot to be desired. There is no content left for the main text area, and not all the information is visible at a glance. Set it out as an infobox, with all the important information in the box, and all the extra information - flavour text and such - in the main article text. - 振霖T 06:20, 13 February 2006 (CST)
