Editing of Bulbapedia is currently restricted. Please see this message for more details.
Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire have arrived!

Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel.

Talk:Pokémon-EX (TCG)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Merging Articles

I posted the merge notice after doing some research and realized that the two types of "Pokémon Ex" are EXACTLY the same, apart from the capitalization ("ex" versus "EX"). As such, I don't think these two are different enough to warrant two separate articles; consider that "Oddish" and "Erika's Oddish" are technically two different Pokémon--you can have four of each in a deck--and yet both can be found on a single article: Oddish (TCG).

Here are the facts about the two and why they are the same thing:

  • Knocking out either Ex's one nets the opponent two prizes instead of one
  • Both Ex's are hugely over-powered Pokémon relative to non-Ex's of their era.
  • Whether an Ex is a Basic, Stage One or Stage Two Pokèmon doesn't make any difference
  • The EX's style of having the Pokémon "pop out" of the picture box versus the standard design of ex's is simply a stylistic issue and not one that is significant enough to warrant a separate article.
  • Perfect example: Shining Magikarp and Shining Gyarados don't have the same "pressed foil" design seen on the Shining Pokémon found in Neo Destiny, but they are still located on the Shining Pokémon (TCG) page.
  • Speaking of Shining Magikarp and Shining Gyarados... these cards are somewhat different from their Neo Destiny counterparts, but the fact that they both share the same essential gameplay mechanic--"You can't have more than 1 Shining XXXXXX in your deck."--was reason enough to keep them all together in the same article.
  • Then consider the reverse: Unown (TCG) went through several different gameplay mechanics; the Neo-block Unown depicted individual Unown characters and were even named differently (Unown L, for example) AND had "You may have up to 4 Basic Pokémon cards in your deck with Unown in their names." reminder text, while Unown from the HGSS-block depicted multiple Unown and were simply known as "Unown" and lacked the Neo-block reminder text. However, despite these differences, they are all still located on the same page--Unown (TCG)--simply because there is something that binds them all together (in this case, they all depict Unown). Therefore, because Pokémon-ex and Pokémon EX" both have the "KO = two prizes" which bind them together, they should be on the same page.
  • The ONLY other significant difference is the fact that they are using two separate symbols for Ex's--the "ex" symbol is lower-cased and black while the "EX" symbol is upper-case and golden--but this is likewise undoubtedly a stylistic issue and thus doesn't warrant a separate article for it.
  • Consider: every "block" changes their card design; the most radical change from probably for the Card-e sets, but no one considers the Card-e block to be a completely different game just because of the different style. As such, why should "EX" be considered a different type from "ex" just because of the differences in artistic stylization?
  • The "gameplay mechanics" that some people claim which separate the two don't exist (at least not at current, and correct me if I'm wrong); the core fundamental mechanic of the Ex types is that they are super strong and that a knock-out nets two prizes instead of one. That's it.
  • Mind you, I have yet to hear anyone confirm whether or not, say, a card that says "Search your deck for a Pokémon-ex card" can't be used to search for a "Pokémon EX" card.
  • But then again, this alone shouldn't affect things much; again, a card that says "Search your deck for an Oddish card" can't be used to search for an "Erika's Oddish" card, but, again, "Oddish" and "Erika's Oddish" are still on the same page despite the differences in "gameplay mechanics".

Thus, in the end, "Pokémon-ex" and "Pokémon EX" are the exact same things and thus should be merged. (Further information about this debate can be read here.)

Of course, I certainly don't mind keeping the two separate; that is, the list of pre-BW-era Ex's should be kept in a separate list from the BW-era Ex's, possibly also to take into account IF the two are technically separate in terms of "Search your deck for a Pokémon-ex card", just like how "Oddish" and "Erika's Oddish" are in separate sections despite being on the same page. But otherwise, the two are exactly the same--or are at least close enough to one another akin to the Oddish, Unown and Neo-era Shining Pokémon examples above--and thus should be contained in the same article.

But that's where I stand on this, and I feel my position is rational and fair. I do however welcome anyone who knows something I don't which completely deflates my argument and proves/rationalizes without a shadow of a doubt that the two articles should remain separate. Thank you for your time! -- Nick15 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we could merge the articles, but keep them as separate sections until we find out if cards that search out Pokémon-ex can also search Pokémon EX. PkmnChmp5 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
They aren't the same name. They CANNOT search that way. They are not going on the same article. MaverickNate 04:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, but it doesn't look like I'll be able to resolve my dispute here. -- Nick15 07:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Fully agree that the two articles should be merged. Ever since day one, I've seen literally no differences between "Pokemon ex" and "Pokemon-EX" besides the capitalization. It seems obvious (to me, at least) that the new Pokemon-EX was meant to be a revival of the old mechanic and therefore is the same thing, just "modernized" with a new look and a shiny capital EX. PieGuy 03:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
This is from the official Pokémon site and it says "Pokémon-EX return in the Pokémon TCG: Black & White-Next Destinies expansion." That sounds like confirmation that they are the same thing to me. What do ya'll think? PkmnChmp5 21:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: Just found This. They are definitely the same thing and the articles SHOULD be merged. PkmnChmp5 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that just about CONFIRMS IT. However... -- Nick15 23:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've since come to notice that, according to the (American) TCG rule staff that old cards which refer to—and affect—"Pokémon ex" cards are not applicable to the new Pokemon EX cards. As such, despite the technicality of that, Nintendo STILL treats the new EX cards to be the same as the old ones (as apparent by their language "Pokémon EX RETURN".). I therefore still believe and request that these two articles be merged, and feel that the Moderator(s) are exceeding their authority by deliberately REFUSING to at least put this matter up to a Community Vote.
HOWEVER, I am willing to compromise on this issue. I suggest that the article "Pokémon EX" (alone, with no sub-paranthesis) be created as Disambiguation page with links leading to "Pokémon ex (EX-series)" and "Pokémon EX (BW series)" articles. This way, the Disambiguation page will cover the details of which both EX-types share, while each individual EX page wil cover the details of which the two are unique (such as what cards can be used against them or not). I think that, short of merging the two articles, this is a fair compromise, as it recognizes the two type's fundamental similarities while also recognizing their technical uniqueness.
I will probably make these chances myself if I don't get any kind of response. Again, I think doing it this way is better and fairer both for everyone's opinions on the matter as well as for the community, as I'm sure there are plenty of people scratching their heads on why there are two articles titled "Pokémon Ex (TCG)". Of course, I'm open to evidence proving the contrary and that we actually ARE best off with the status quo and that even something like a Disambiguation page along with a renaming of the two articles is compltely unnecessary.. -- Nick15 23:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Er, by "make these changes myself", I mean placing the "move request" thingy on the top of both EX pages (so that AT LEAST it's easier to tell which of the two "Pokémon EX" articles are for, instead of the generic and less clear title of "Pokemon EX (TCG)") as well as edit the article "Pokémon EX" so that it's not a redirect and is instead a Disambiguation page which links leading to the two separate articles. That's assuming I have to get a Mod's permission to use the "Move" function that's on the top of every page. -- Nick15 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
We at Bulbapedia recognize two ways of disambiguating articles. Typically, when there are only two things being distinguished from one another, the line at the top of the page directing users to the other one is preferred. Both pages already do this.
The only thing that binds these two mechanics is the 2 prize rule. They are very much separate. Even though the International Company mentioned a revival of the old Pokémon-ex, the Japanese Pokémon Company (the parent company of the aforementioned TPCi, mind you) regards them as completely separate things. With the first group, it is an abbreviation for "Pokémon extra." The new group are "Pokémon E-X." Even the card layout and representation was based on something other than Pokémon-ex. All the Japanese listings were quite specific and exact when announcing the new group, taking the time to point out how unique and different they are supposed to be. The entire Japanese player base considers them two completely separate things. Rulings in both languages consider them two separate entities that are not tied together.
The fact that the localization of the card game screwed up the representation of the first group does not change the fact that they are intended to be separate, and actually are completely separate in the country of origin.
The pages will not be moved. Nothing more will be created. The two pages represent exactly what they should, and they direct readers to the other if they intended to be there. MaverickNate 04:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

I merged this article with Pokémon-ex, so this page needs to be deleted. PkmnChmp5 04:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You did not have permission to merge the articles. Do not do this again. Jo the Marten ಠ_ಠ 04:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. Just tryin' to help. PkmnChmp5 04:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dragon Type

I was reading the table, and it seems like Giratine and Rayquaza have the "Dragon" type. Is this a new TCG Type, or is it just made for these two cards? Do we need an article for it otherwise? --Teddi'Ampha

Black Kyurem-EX and White Kyurem-EX

This page lists the upcoming Black and White Kyurem-EX tin promos as being reprints of the Boundaries Crossed versions; do we have any proof of this? Darthrai (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really (as far as I know), but the Keldeo-EX is a reprint from Boundaries Crossed, it makes sense that the Kyurem cards are reprints from the same set too. Plus, they were the debut EXs for Black and White Kyurem, coming from a main expansion, have full art versions and all that. The Plasma Storm ones, were just shoved into the english set and came from stand alone decks. I think it makes more sense to assume the reprints are from the Boundaries Crossed versions. Metalizard (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)