Talk:Pokémon Trading Card Game
| This is the talk page for the Pokémon Trading Card Game page. If you have a comment suited more |
towards improving the encyclopedia's TCG coverage, consider posting it on Project TCG's talk page.
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)
- 1 Naming System
- 2 Unclassified promos
- 3 Named Pokémon
- 4 Rarity
- 5 Pokemon VS Discrepancy
- 6 Rules?
- 7 What went wrong with the WoTC picture?
- 8 Sub-Set/Mini-Set Expansions?
- 9 Levels of Pokémon
- 10 weird card
- 11 TCG video game "sprites"
- 12 Dragon Type
- 13 How To Play
- 14 Wiki vs. Official Website scans
- 15 Korean set info
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
- 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)
- After looking at those newer sets purported to have many repeated cards - I find that they are not as common as some have led me to believe - therefore, as previously suggested, only repeated cards need a number specified. Also, someone tell me that those half-deck halves don't actually give each energy card a unique number. - 振霖T 07:14, 13 February 2006 (CST)
- Go ahead, can you please help set up the infobox, because i don't know that, and ill enter the rest of the info. If so, can you be kind enough to edit Template:TCGInfobox - plau
I vote that the card naming system be: NAME (SET) [OTHER] - NAME and SET are obvious. OTHER should only be used if there are two cards of the same name in the same set. You can use card number, level, #1/#2/#n, or nicknames. - Nick15 03:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You might want to check out the Project TCGDex talk page. The discussion's been moved there.
This article, lovely as it is, seems to focus overly much on the cards in relation to organized play. There seems to be a complete lack of information here on rarity, collecting, and marketing. If someone could, please expand to include information on the rarity system (common, uncommon, rare, rare holo, etc) explain such anomalies as Pokémon EX and reverse-holos, "secret" cards, the odds of finding a given rarity/given card, numbers of cards in packs, stuff like that. I would expand the article myself, but then, if I HAD this information, I wouldn't be asking. Cheers. Din's Fire 997 06:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Very true. The Pokémon Trading Card Game page over at Wikipedia is much more in-depth, and an example of what this page needs to be. Cipher 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Pokemon VS Discrepancy
Due to Pokémon VS, there is a conflict concerning what appears to be every single evolved Pokémon in the set: They are all basic Pokémon in VS. What this means is that each page that declares "All *** cards are Stage # Pokémon." referring to Pokémon in said set is technically incorrect. I already modified Charizard and Blastoise to align with this, but since the scope of this seems to be a relatively large, I decided I should mention it here. Should that line simply be removed like I already did, changed to "Most" instead of "All", or should it simply be ignored? ~ Zeofar 08:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd remove it, personally, but wait and see what other TCG editors think. Cipher (Talk) 09:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to explain how to play the Pokémon TCG somewhere in the article, or maybe make a new page called "How to play the Pokémon Trading Card Game"? I know how to play so I could help with this if anyone is interested. Taromon777 21:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Most of the things are on this page, If we want more, I'll have to think about it. MaverickNate 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
What went wrong with the WoTC picture?
It's way too big.--Midnight Blue 23:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's odd...It's not letting me resize it, and when I preview it, it's eating the navbar...--Dark ICE (User:Cold)(page, talk) 23:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe just an error.--Midnight Blue 23:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Curious as to where "Lost Link (TCG)" would fit into this page along with the others of this same set-type?
Levels of Pokémon
At the bottom of the cards (in the Pokédex data) there is a level of the Pokémon. Should this be included as and extra row in the table?--Chalkwriter 15:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Only on about half the cards. What table are you talking about? MaverickNate 18:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Chances are that it isn't real. There are plenty of sites that display fake Pokemon cards. Frozen Fennec 03:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
TCG video game "sprites"
Could someone perhaps upload the card "sprites" from the TCG video game ? I thought it would probably be a good addition to their respective cards' pages.--WenGobou 20:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- They already are. They are only used on the two TCG games' expansion pages. MaverickNate 20:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
So apparently that new Dragon type for the TCG PokeBeach has been doing all the coverage on is SO unimportant it hasn't gotten any sort of reference or article of any kind? This is HUGE for the TCG, so I'm not sure why nothing is on this site for the new Dragon type at all. I mean, when was the last time the TCG added any new types anyways? Shiramu Kuromu 01:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome to contribute any information you have. Bulbapedia is a wiki, meaning anyone is able to add content. The encyclopedia is not dependent on one person or a group of people. Rather than complaining about a lack of information, take the time to lend a hand and help build the new article(s). —darklordtrom 06:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Easier said then down given I don't have any screenshots I could use. All of the ones I know of are at PokeBeach. Shiramu Kuromu 20:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
How To Play
Should we add more to the "How To Play" Section? Should this section just be a summary of the objectives, or should it have a more detailed explanation, such as the ones in the booklets that come with the decks? Efureie (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Wiki vs. Official Website scans
I noticed that while the images of the trading cards are good, they are not as clear as the ones from the Official Pokémon Website in their TCG Card Database section. These images are much clearer than the scans currently on the wiki, and are all in English. However there are some flaws, such as being smaller in size. I was just wondering if there is any particular reason to why scans are currently being used instead of the ones from the official site, as they are able to be copied/saved. I don't really mind either way, but just thought I would suggest it here in case copyright isn't an issue. For comparison, her is the current Bulbapedia upload of Lysandre (Flashfire 104) and here is the official site upload. evacino (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2014 (BST)
- Nate's answer when I asked the question to him a while back: Cards on Pokemon.com glikglak 19:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Korean set info
If I recall correctly, all International sets are based on the North American release, yes? Meaning that their set layout, set icons, etc, are all the same. Japan is run differently than the North American releases, with their own layout, icons, etc.
But as it turns out, it seems as if the Korean versions are unique to Korea. While the set releases are more similar to Japan's releases, they use the North American card fronts and backs, and they have their own unique set icons.
Therefore, I suggest including information on the Korean sets on each of the set pages, and including their set lists, icons, and all other pertinent info. I mean, I'll do it myself, if people think it's worth adding. This is also assuming that non-English/Japanese/Korean versions of the TCG are exactly the same as the English version and thus don't vary in the same way the Korean version does. -- Nick15 (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)