Bulbapedia talk:Project TCG

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 22:30, 10 April 2024 by 4iamking (talk | contribs) (→‎Basic _ Energy)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

This is the talk page for the Bulbapedia's TCG Project.

Previous discussion

Regarding illustrators

Wouldn't it be more useful to include a gallery section for each illustrators' article instead of simply listing their cards or linking to a category? Considering those are text-based only. --Gabo 2oo (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Page/Category for Cards that have a narrative?

Recently I've noticed many cards are part of certain narratives. However, there is no section that lists all these cards in one place. Would it be useful to create a page on this subject that links to each of these cards? Brawlersinthezone (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

TCGO and "Battle Simulator"

Notes from my one-man mission to get those Trainer Challenge decklists from TCG Online:

  • The game's code is a mess. Not in the poorly made sense, it's just too full of classes and references to other code for an easy analysis. I have no idea how and if the game ever stores TC decklists in your computer or a way to extract info from the servers, so playing against them keeps the only avaliable opition. Most npcs have their current decklists on Bulbapedia, but this could automate the process for the future.
  • The game's cache has assets for each npc's cards (not their quantity), but it seems unreliable. For example, Venusaur-EX is in Logan's assets but he does not use it in his only appearance, regardless of difficulty setting.
  • Old decks are another can of worms. The "Early BW era" only applies to City Championship and Diamond League as they got introduced ater BW, while Gold and Platinum League Trainers kept using HGSS lists up until Plasma Storm came out. The "BW era" decks presented in each Trainer's article were actually "Early XY" decks that did more than replace Trainer cards, some got outright nerfed and/or their Pokémon changed. Plus somehow Mick had three copypasted decks from another npc in his article for five years.
  • Daniel's decklists having a single different card (-1 energy, +1 Professor's Letter) makes me wonder about other subtle differences in other Trainer's appaearances that might've been skipped over.

Also worth pointing to a series of short TCG games from the Japanese website not avaliale in Pokémon.com; I'm not sure if these should be on their own article, or an article about Japanese-exclusive minigames. Pipefan (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Rotation marks

Since rotation is going to be based on the rotation mark (aka the D, E, etc. printed at the bottom of a card) to determine which cards are legal, it would probably be worth updating {{TCGExpansionInfobox}} to include a section for the set's rotation marker (which would apply to all Sword and Shield era sets and the Asian releases of the Sun and Moon era sets. Mr. Daikon (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's on my to-do list. Currently getting new setlists made to have regulation marks noted on expansion pages. glikglak 12:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Competitive Usage Info on Card Pages

I would like to begin on a project that adds information related to the actual use of a card in competitive play to every single card page. Considering that the cards are playable pieces to a larger game instead of just collectibles, explaining how they are used within the game, while providing important context to the game's meta at the time, feels like a natural inclusion to their pages. I have put together a draft for Hitmonchan (Base Set 7) on Google Docs showing a mockup of its Bulbapedia page and the kind of information I would like to add. Here's the link to it. Some notes about my draft:

  • The three full paragraphs of information I wrote are all directly related to the card itself and its specific impact and history, as well as important synergies necessary to understand the strength of the card. I tried to avoid including extraneous information that would be better suited for other pages. Electabuzz, for example, is a notable omission from this page, as it doesn't actually have any direct synergy with Hitmonchan, but saw play because it covers Hitmonchan's weaknesses. That particular synergy feels best explained on Haymaker's page.
  • Notable deck archetypes: this section is intended to link to every deck archetype page that features the page's card. For Hitmonchan, there's only one archetype, Haymaker, but for other cards (e.g. Computer Search) there's going to be several. Keeping them a simple list that links to their deck archetype pages makes the most sense to me.
  • Notable synergies/counters: These sections are intended to be a simple summary of notable interactions with the card, which is useful for readers looking for quick information. I wrote the draft detailing everything featured here, but in retrospect I think these too should just be simple lists, and each respective card's page will have the information that explains why they're a good counter/synergy. This would remove redundant information on the page, while still providing the quick information and easy linking I intend to give with these sections.

My intention with this project is to make Bulbapedia a better resource for competitive history than it currently is. I would like to get started as quickly as possible, but I was advised to make a Talk post about it first.Alice Voltaire (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you explain the utility of Hitmonchan well but the tone needs a second pass to make it more encyclopedic. For instance "Super Energy Removal’s cost of discarding an attached Energy is often trivial for Hitmonchan"; instead of the subjective term "trivial", it'd be better to say that SER's cost is effectively nullified. And in "It still remained a serious competitive threat until Neo Genesis’s Sneasel came out", "serious threat" is very hype-ish. It maintained viability or it continued to see play.
Your first paragraph has a couple factual errors. Onix has the second highest HP for a Base Set Basic at 90 and Hitmonchan's Jab isn't the most damage for one Energy, it's the most consistent highest damaging one Energy attack. Farfetch'd's one use of Leek Slap and Magikarp with two damage counters both do 30. Flipping it around goes farther: "Hitmonchan's Jab attack had the highest damage of a single Energy attack that did not have drawbacks. And of all the Basic Pokémon with access to such moves, Hitmonchan had the highest HP".
Outlining the timeframe should be done at the beginning of a section like this. Additionally, recorded uses at official tournaments should be referenced where possible.
Finally, an objective statement like "most efficient attacker" needs a good amount of hard data to back it up, exactly how many Basic Pokémon it can KO in a hit or two, how many of those are due to Hitmonchan's typing in comparison to the other single Energy 20 attackers, etc. It really needs a full breakdown of the meta of the time. And that's a bit too much to stick on one card page just to justify saying "most efficient" over "very efficient". glikglak 21:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This is very useful critique, I very much appreciate it and will try my best to apply it for future edits. I do have one issue with this, though, and that's with the "outlining the timeframe" part. I feel that it best flows with having that portion of the section at the end, as the history of the usage of a card is best understood if you have an understanding of how a card functions within a meta first. Additionally, if a card sees less play later on in its history, then something happened within the meta itself (e.g. a good counter came out), and it is impossible to understand that change without first knowing basic information on the card's function first. If it would be preferable, I could divide these three paragraphs into "Overview" and "History of Competitive Play" to help define each section. I have updated the draft with these changes in mind.
Also, important to note that there is unfortunately very little tournament data in the early years of the game's history, particularly in the first year as there were no major tournaments at all then. I will do my best to find good, significant tournament placings, but 1999 only had small card shop tournaments. Alice Voltaire (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
A timeframe is necessary so readers not already familiar with the meta of the time have a reference for what is and isn't usable at the time. For the Base Set it isn't paramount since there weren't any previous cards, but for future formats it's very important. There are even cards that only saw significant usage when they were in the Expanded format and a synergy card was introduced later. A thing I forgot to mention, these sections should entirely be in the past tense given that we're talking about the past; Hitmonchan certainly doesn't have the highest single Energy attack nowadays. And avoid using "you" or referring directly to the reader in other ways.
Separating the overview and history is fine but the other three sections need to be merged into overview. glikglak 23:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I think I just misunderstood what you meant by timeframe, I definitely agree with that being needed. I thought you meant to put the breakdown of the history first, and made the "Overview" and "Competitive History" sections as a compromise out of that misunderstanding. I've now reverted it back, and added at the beginning what I believe it is you wanted.
I intentionally wrote most everything in present tense because these formats are still perfectly playable, and have active fan communities still playing them today, and reserved the past tense for things describing the historical development of the format. This will be even more of an important distinction later as some cards were mostly ignored in their time, but in modern play have been discovered to be really strong. But I also understand if you insist on it being past tense, I just think it sounds weird when talking in past tense about interactions that still are correct today. I have updated the draft for hopefully the final time, and if this is up to your standards, then I'll apply everything we've talked about to all future edits I make for this project. Alice Voltaire (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstood about the section headers: overview and history are fine, it's archetypes, counters, and synergies that don't need their own sections. The overview being present tense is fine if the "timeframe" is explained by expansion. Instead of "During the 2001 Modified format", "In the Team Rocket-Neo Destiny format" for example. glikglak 19:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Lost Origin missing from individual card pages

Most if not all the */[Pokemon name]_(TCG) pages are missing entries for the respective Pokémon regarding their appearances in Lost Origin. Is this something that's automated or is it done manually? I could do some if it's the latter. --INTERNETFRIEND (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Other appearances" section for species pages

I'm looking to propose a pretty sizable increase in scope for the TCG species pages; I want to run it by other folks to see if there's other suggestions/better ways to do it. For context, I've met a lot of collectors looking for artwork of a specific species of Pokémon, but they miss several cards due to the Pokémon they're collecting not being part of the card's name. For example, a Dragonite collector thinking they have every Dragonite card, then finding out about Pokémon Breeder Fields (Neo Revelation 62) or Blaziken (Furious Fists 14) by happenstance, and then realizing they have more work to do. There's not too many resources out there for this type of collector -- a handful of YouTube videos, a thread on EliteForum, and a Google Sheet I maintain and occasionally post to Reddit. I'd like to add a section to every relevant species page with this information. I posted some mockups to my userpage. Thoughts and help appreciated, thanks. RotomAmiti (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Are art collectors typically as meticulous as regular collectors, wanting multiple prints of the same art? Like, is an art collector likely to be searching for both the Challenge from the Darkness and the Yamabuki City Gym prints of Warp Point, where the only difference is one has a circle in the corner? Cause if not, you could save a lot of space with a simple name + description table. glikglak 18:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
From personal experience, I've definitely met folks who are pretty particular about having a super-duper-ultra-100% collection, but I think listing each individual release has a more practical use in that "Hey, these are the exact prints of Warp Point that have Oddish." Listing them all out like that, to me, makes it clear that the Majestic Dawn and Regigigas Half Deck prints are excluded. Additionally, for people who aren't hyperfixated on getting every variant, it plainly lays out their options. "Ok, my only options for the EX Series are MA, UF, and CG. CG is the cheapest, I'll buy that one." Regarding cards that have multiple arts which qualify (Professor Elm's Lecture is a good example, with LOT 188 and LOT 213 having different arts but the same Pokémon), I figure they can be listed with their name cells unmerged to hopefully make it clear that they refer to different arts. I'm unsure how well that would come across, though. RotomAmiti (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I can't imagine someone getting to the "which one do I buy" step before going to the card's page to look at the art, where the information on which prints have what art already lives. And I don't think "all 24 prints of Tierno have Vannilite" is information worth the amount of space it'd take up. Space is really the major factor here; 24 prints of Tierno for Vannilite, 22 prints of Switch for Geodude. Imagine those numbers on Pikachu, who's bound to be on over a hundred cards' art. glikglak 23:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
So, using the Switch example, would something on a more basic table that simply says "All prints from EX Ruby & Sapphire through EX Dragon Frontiers, as well as Celestial Storm" be preferred? Or even just "EX Ruby & Sapphire 92", maybe with a separate listing for "Celestial Storm 147" because it's a different card template. I don't know, I just feel like one of the wiki's weaknesses is that it's unclear which card numbers correspond to which card art, and I'm concerned that not being explicitly thorough in a list of cards would just make that problem worse. To be clear, I'm fine with making a simplified list if it is deemed necessary, I just think doing it for the sake of a shorter page would be phoning it in. Incidentally, I can confirm that Pikachu has over 100 card appearances before even counting reprints (although there are surprisingly few reprints, it's mostly stuff like No. 1 Trainer). RotomAmiti (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Cobbled together an example table. If there's multiple arts in a set (like regular and Full Arts) I'd put the card number, e.g. "Lost Thunder 188". Beyond that, compress info when it's reasonable. Matching arts to prints is the purview of individual card pages, which is a project I'm not getting into until the next upgrade to the site's backend. glikglak 19:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this concept is known and understood by people as a Pokémon cameo on another card. That's what we should call it too until the official outlets give it a name, but it notably doesn't include things beyond that (like the illustrator magazine cards). MaverickNate 01:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
With the knowledge that card pages are planning to be modified for the alternate prints, I can get behind this. I'll whip up some modified example tables in the next few days, before I start modifying the pages. RotomAmiti (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Figure out any changes/additions, then I'll make it a template. glikglak 23:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Didn't see any alteration suggestions, so made the basic table a basic template. Entries are so simple I'm not bothering to make it one, you just use standard table formatting. glikglak 15:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Deck Archetypes Should Be High Priority

The Deck archetype (TCG) page has a dangerously high amount of red links. But more importantly than that, they are red links that are hard to fill because they require specific knowledge from past metagames that may have passed from the minds of editors. I know I've watched coverage and read articles from 2019, but I don't know what Grass Growth (TCG) is, nor do I remember the make up of the average PikaRom (TCG) deck. It could be possible to pull out old articles from Pokemon.com and use their data to fill these out, but I think these articles are aiming for being slightly better than old Pokemon.com coverage. Deck archetype should be on the todo list somewhere for this reason. Salmancer (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean ultimately what content gets added depends on where individual peoples interests lie, TCG is already such a big project with thin resources, so I feel it somewhat natural that unfortunately some articles get neglected. If you want to take charge however, filling out those deck archetype articles would be a big help. As for finding potential builds, one option might be to look up key cards from the archetype on limitless and then you should be able to get a bunch of decklists that people have taken to past tournaments. For PikaRom specifically, you can look here. 4iamking 03:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Isn't there a rule against collecting data from other fansites? Wouldn't we have to source from Pokemon.com decklists? Salmancer (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
We don't allow a fan sites own content without prior consent, but in this context its just pure unmanipulated data, that would be no different than if you rewatched a tournament stream to get a deck list. 4iamking 04:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Type symbol representation as letters

I wanted to talk about representing the Fire type in card page titles as "R" instead of "F". Pokémon Trading Card Game Live already does that for deck list exports to prevent ambiguity with Fighting, and the main application for this is distinguishing Fire Energy and Fighting Energy cards. Similarly, the Fighting/Fairy situation is solved thanks to representing Fairy via the letter "Y", and the Darkness/Dragon situation is solved with the letter "N" representing the Dragon type (although this isn't actually done to distinguish Basic Energy cards).

Due to this, I'm proposing to move five card pages to resolve these ambiguities:

On those pages, I already put up {{move}} notices and the proposed new titles. Holon Energy FF (EX Delta Species 104) has actual letters instead of type symbols in the printed card name, in both English and Japanese. Because of that, this page doesn't need moving. --Bfdifan2006 (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree the types should be as follows:C for Colorless, D for Darkness, F for Fighting, G for Grass, L for Lightning, M for Metal, N for Dragon, P for Psychic, R for Fire, W for Water, Y for Fairy. This will give us deferentiation, avoid confusion and facilitate deck-list exports. As far as PTCGL is concerned, the types can also be spelled out, which is an alternative that im also partial to instead of Blend Energy GRPD Fairy Charm N we would instead then have Blend Energy GrassFirePsychicDarkness and Fairy Charm Dragon. 4iamking 15:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Counterpoint, the Pokemon.com database semi consistently uses type icons for the names of these cards. The exceptions are the two from Rebel Clash, Speed Lightning and Horror Psychic, which uses the full type name. (These were the first of the Swsh Special Energies, so it is possible the style guide was not established yet.) Also, this ruling says the name of these cards on decklists should use their abbreviations. So I much prefer using the letter codes for page names. Salmancer (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The one consistancy with the Pokemon.com database is that it is that it is full of inconsistancy. PTCGL is a better source for card data because thats more better since tournaments can be held on the platform. As for using symbols, thats not really feasible to use in page titles due to MediaWiki constraints, but we can discuss introducing Them to the articles in the same way WikiDex currently does. None of this goes against the ruleing that you cited, if anything that ruleing demonstrates the need for differentiation since different symbols are not the same name, even when we use the same letters. 4iamking 16:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
But the above proposal is to move all articles using {F} to represent Fire to {R}, making the symbol use consistent with the ruling and to general representations of types via letters. With that change (and the fairy and dragon changes), no types have the same letter to represent them in cases where the symbol cannot be used. Salmancer (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we generally think the same way, however we cant use squiggly brackets on page titles, it's one of the very few banned characters because of how it's used in wiki code. To represent Fighting, we can either use F or Fighting to represent the type, but {F} and Fighting are not possible to include in the title. 4iamking 04:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Super late to this but im seconding the R=Fire / N=Dragon / Y=Fairy change. If it has precedent in PTCGL i think it's good enough to implement here. anZAsquiddles 2222(:D)SSSS (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
4iamking already implemented type codes into the {{e}} template, so I guess I could move these pages. Or someone who can suppress redirects while moving can. --Bfdifan2006 (talk | contribs) 19:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't see why we'd want to suppress the redirects, they'd still be useful for people searching that don't know the type abbreviations. glikglak 12:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I see. I suppose these pages could be moved now. --Bfdifan2006 (talk | contribs) 13:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, my preference would be writing the types out in long form over using abbreviations in the title; there is also the awkard case of R Energy clashing with Fire Energy, though im of the strong opinion that the basic energy pages should be moved. 4iamking 13:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
"Blend Energy GrassFirePsychicDarkness" is the worst possible title. glikglak 13:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Worst named card; maybe... but if want to be litterally accurate thats how you would say it. 4iamking 13:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned before, there's a ruling stating that cards on decklists should use abbreviations. With that, I'll move these pages. For Japanese, I will make new redirects as well. --Bfdifan2006 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(reset indent) The ruleing says merely that the energy symbols should be considered part of the name, part of the reason I dont like using the short hand is because it creates confusion with existing cards, and we already spell out the energy symbol for other cards that have them in the name, namely the basic energy cards, and it would be nice to smooth out that inconsistancy. For TCGL both forms of notation are equally acceptable. 4iamking 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

i.e. "Fire Energy" is "Basic {R} Energy" in the game, but "Basic Fire Energy" is equally recognized and acceptable, the spelled out version just happens to be where we place the article as well. 4iamking 15:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This is one of those times where having a policy makes decisions so much easier. Essentially, we're arguing over if we should use the full spelt out name for the title or the version that is seen more often, regulating the other to redirects and the article's body. (I think current convention favors the fullest version of names, but I can't be sure, it's not written down anywhere.)
Search bars read text, not speech, so I lean on whichever form is used in text. As it happens, I don't feel like running the numbers on if abbreviations or words are more common in offcial Pokemon communications. However, we can make an objective determination by seeing what TCG Live exports, as that is very obviously how it chooses to present card names in the absence of symbol use. (This is opposed to how TCG Live reads names. Reading should logically be more generous, because having an import fail kinda sucks. So what names Live reads can't be a decisive determiner.)
TCG Live exports use abbreviations, even for the Basic Energy. Even for the pre-SV printings of said Basic Energy. Which works, surprisingly enough, because all of those articles should have been moved to Basic ___ Energy anyway. With zero conflict to boot, with the exception of R Energy, which is a single card from ages past that a note saying, "R Energy redirects here. For the Basic Energy card that provides Fire Energy, see Basic R Energy (TCG)," more than handles. (If you want to be really careful, a note on Basic R Energy going back to R Energy is fine.) Furthermore, it allows for distinguishing the cards which use type icons from the ones that don't from a name search (Double Dragon and Double Colorless, compared to Powerful C). If the name of the game is consistency, then we should use abbreviations for all! Salmancer (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it is something that would be good to root in policy, I personally would suggest we write out type symbols consistantly, precisely since they are represented by single letters and can be confused with old cards. For stuff like Star and Prism star, which are represented by and respectively; symbols which dont clash with single letters, these are fine. I don't think Basic R Energy is an intuitive name for Fire energy, especially since the name we want there is Basic {R} Energy, this of course being something we cant do due to MediaWiki restrictions. While PTCGL does export fire energy as Basic {R} Energy, if you replace the export with Basic Fire Energy the game will recognize the import all the same. Additionally while on its own not a good resource for gaging consistancy, the official database spells out the type when it doesn't use the symbol (though whether it does this or use the type, is rather inconsistant), as can be seen here. This why I think its better to write out any energy symbol that may be in a card's name for the page title. And I would suggest incorporating this as a point of policy/Future TCG manual of style 4iamking 16:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Who is searching for "L Energy" anyway? We've conceded that people search by English (see Letter from the Editor from March 4th), and the first visible name for this set of cards is "Basic L Energy". All the old cards that say "L Energy" are actually checking for provided Energy, not for a card name. It just happens that only Basic L Energy provides L Energy while not in play. (And Scarlet and Violet made all of these cards just say Basic L Energy instead, dodging this confusion entirely. See Electric Generator!) So I think we're more than safe, because no search would ever skip the "Basic" unless it's based on old TCG Online Exports or just looking at old card data. In which case, they're enfranchised enough that the redirect should be more than adequate. (Pokemon.com lists use "Lightning Energy", but we have redirects for those too.)
The article's name should be the definitive title. I sincerely do not think that the fact TCG Live has the option of reading "Basic Lighting Energy" should be a factor, because its option in a process that is supposed to be flexible. Salmancer (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that adding basic to the page name isnt an issue, and i encourage it. Just so were clear, the "Basic ___ Energy" isnt entirely something that was started in SV, trainer guides and rule books from before use this terminology as well, abit very inconstiatntly. SV is the first time it was printed on the card in english, but Asian cards have been doing this since Gen 4. the issue is calling it "L" energy, because the shorthand energy codes are never the front-facing way TPC uses to display card names, they either show the symbol or write it out. 4iamking 16:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Creating categories for all attacks

If it's okay, I'd like to resume this project of creating categories for all TCG attacks. This includes creating the missing attack categories from Special:WantedCategories.

At the moment, there are a few cards using "namecategory=None" so they explicitly don't have an attack category. For instance, Vikavolt-GX (Guardians Rising 45) is automatically placed in both Category:Cards with Charge Beam and Category:Cards with Super Zap Cannon but it's also using the "namecategory=None" so it's actually not in Category:Cards with Gigatron.

In the future, I'd like to remove those few instances of "namecategory=None" like that so all card attack categories can be created. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, if anyone wants to discuss ideas about creating some TCG attack categories but not all of them, I suppose "namecategory=None" could potentially be used somehow. But then again, I wonder what the criteria would be. This would also require some maintenance. For instance, if we decide that hundreds of attack categories should not exist, I suppose this would probably mean adding "namecategory=None" in hundreds of card articles?
Personally, I like how this "Cards by attack" category basically works as a full list of all TCG attack names that is easily expanded when more card articles are created. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
We have a templating issue involving the GX attacks. The GX is part of the name of a GX attack. (Compendium entry about Altered Creation GX and Trickster GX for reference Pokemon.com article, also for reference) I think those templates are automatically adding the GX suffix, and only the inputted name is used to add the category to the page. This causes the categories created by the template to be "Gigatron", "Altered Creation", and "Trickster", which is incorrect. And while organization might prefer not including the suffix, attack names have mechanical relevance and the TCG is very particular about matching names. What if someone wants to build a Flare Blitz or Strafe deck and finds cards in those categories that have Flare Blitz GX or Strafe GX? (These are real examples of GX attacks, although none that have been called out by name yet.) I think we should double back and get the template to make correctly named categories before we do this.
Actually, now that I think about it, presumably namecategory=none was put on Vikavolt to avoid making categories of a single card, which the above change would create a lot of. That reasoning would be silly, considering the TCG still makes one off attacks even if they aren't GX attacks, and they don't get namecategory=none. Salmancer (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
About one-off attacks, currently the Category:Attack categories with 1 card has 471 categories (and more categories can be created in the future from the current redlinks).
For instance, "Fighting Fangs" appears to be used by a single card, so as a result Category:Cards with Fighting Fangs is currently a member of "Attack categories with 1 card". This kind of categorization is done by the templates, so if we ever create a new article for another card with "Fighting Fangs", then this attack category will have 2 articles and as a result be automatically moved into Category:Attack categories with 2 cards instead.
So like I was saying above, I would suggest removing "namecategory=none" from that Vikavolt-GX card and creating the category for that one-off attack. (To be fair, I wonder if anyone would prefer to argue in favor of having absolutely no one-off attack categories. But would that mean doing the work of adding "namecategory=none" to all those cards and then later removing the "namecategory=none" if the attack gets used on more cards?)
I see the links you provided call the GX attacks by their names with "GX" in running text. Pokémon.com says: "if you can’t spare the resources for Tag Bolt-GX, a timely Tapu Thunder-GX can be just as devastating to an opponent". So I understand this is confirmation that the attacks officially have "GX" in their names.
The attacks with "GX" in the name are currently being placed into categories without the "GX". So that means we have Category:Cards with Resolute Blade with two cards:
So it appears we should change this current system and create the attack categories with "GX" in the name? You know, "Category:Cards with Resolute Blade" and separately "Category:Cards with Resolute Blade-GX". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Exactly that. It would be better done as a See also link in the category page. No one is going to notice the explaination currently on the Category:Cards by attack page. And then they'll be sad when they click a link to the Cards with Boomburst category from the name "Boomburst" on a individual card page and find Noivern-GX, which very technically does not have "Boomburst" printed on it. The article for Boomburst can have both Boomburst and Boomburst-GX on it, because article text can differentiate the two. Categories can't do the same (doubly so, since all they can display is the article name), so applying stricter criteria makes them more helpful. Salmancer (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't help that the explanation does not appear to line up with the actual reason. Which as far as I can determine is, "That's how the template for card text was made". Salmancer (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with using the correct names for those categories like "Category:Cards with Boomburst-GX" instead of removing the GX. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Done. The existing categories for GX attacks now have GX in the name, like Category:Cards with Boomburst-GX. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, we can also make categories for "Cards with a GX attack" and "Cards with a "VSTAR Power". (Which is a useful distinction, because the Z-Crystals and Seal Stones are cards.) Salmancer (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Articles for TCG attacks

At some point in the future, I'm thinking that move articles like Tackle (move) could explain how the moves are used in the TCG (Category:Cards with Tackle).

We might also want to talk about creating articles explaining some TCG attacks even if they are not found in the video games. For instance, something like a "Ram (attack)" or "Ram (TCG)" article comparing how this attack is used in 173 cards (Category:Cards with Ram). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Pokémon card infobox wishlist

Hello everyone! Before Pokémon Trading Card Game Pocket, we are taking the opportunity to modernize our Pokémon Card infobox to ensure it is in top working condition for all the new cards coming out in that game. This will also include modularizing the templates so that we can lighten the data load for each page. These are the current issues we have identified trying to work through:

  • Providing a Pocket alternative that excludes the card features not included (Resistance, for example)
  • Incorporating regulation marks
  • Determining how to represent expansion info on pages, including non-Japanese, non-English set info

Does anyone else identify any other problems with the infobox? Please let us know below. MaverickNate 11:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are we doing this before full details of Pocket come out? Waiting until that happens is superior to running through this now, because only TPC knows what the future holds. (Not even the leakers!) If we do a revamp now, Bulbapedia is opening itself to random curveballs on release that can't be foreseen now, such as if there's a random new non-ex mechanic to worry about and what those diamonds in the lower left corner actually stand for. (This could theoretically be leveled at any new set, however with an entire new kind of game the possibility of being blindsided by new information is far, far higher.) (It's clearly not just a new rendition of previously seen TCG video games.) If we must...
  • I think there's a guideline that restricts infoboxes that extend too far down a page. (At least, this appears to be true given how UNITE removed stats from infoboxes because of Pokémon with multiple statlines.) Current notability policy allows for pushing non-English, non-Japanese names out of infoboxes into dedicated "In other languages" sections. This likely should apply here, a dedicated section with a template of its own creating a table covering all releases in non-English and non-Japanese sets. Call it "Releases in other languages".
  • Currently, the Template:PokémoncardInfobox/EvomegaEX displays incorrect text, as has been noted in the talk page for the main card infobox. This presumably gets fixed in the revamp. Since this is a revamp, it should also affect the name of the sub-template (that's what these are called, right?) and the way EvomegaEX is called by the main template. (This is also why we should wait until a manual of style for TCG is made, so we don't have to backtrack later to fix things like this.)
  • Since we're redoing the parameters, might as well rename "wmultiplier" and "rmultiplier" to "wmodifier" or "weffect" (rulebook says "effect" in terms of what Weakness does, but templates aren't prose so it doesn't have to be followed here.)
  • Similarly, redoing things so that a card's name is inputted as the cards actual name, or making prefix and suffix parameters, would make the template more intuitive to use. Currently, "cardname" only wants the species name and prefix, suffixes are being handled by "class" or "level" depending on series (and still holds prefixes), and "jname" and "jtrans" include both prefix and suffix. This is crazy inconsistent and a revamp gives us time to undo the technical debt of the system. (Oh, and Shining Pokemon's "class" is "Shiny" for some reason even though "Shining" has to be typed multiple times due to the other parts of the template. That seems like it'll lead to a bad time somewhere down the line.)
  • It would be very helpful if the new implementation for "evolves into" could be used on Antique Dome Fossil (151 152) and similar cards. It would also be nice if it can be flexible enough to not require an entire other template (Template:PokémoncardInfobox/Evobasicspecial) for Buried Fossil (Skyridge 47) and a completely different entire other template (Template:PokémoncardInfobox/Evobabyspecial) for Tyrogue (Neo Discovery 66) and Tyrogue (Aquapolis 63).
  • A few more categories, like set and rarity, could stand to be "baked into" the template. (Anza also pointed out on the talk page for the template that Retreat Cost could be too.) So can Weakness and Resistance thanks to the infrequent "Chirp" attack that calls for Resistance. (At Category:Cards with Chirp) Salmancer (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Honestly I the more i think about it, the more I like the idea of just disconnecting the release information from the infobox given how convoluted and dynamic this can be. What we have right now also gets really messy with commonly released cards like Potion. and perhaps merging this with a gallery... I feel we could turn the gallery into a list of prints, showing off the art for each, then include the set info, languages, rarity, number etc with that... I might experiment and see what this could look like. The thing to keep in mind is it needs to be dynamic enough to show any english and japanese releases, but also have the ability to show release information for cards that don't get an English or Japanese release, which there is a small but increasing number of. 4iamking 15:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, the box showing the card and credits can be made into a separate template. The reason for this is Lua. Once we get it to work, there are two advantages: we can use random functions (for the infobox), and there is no limit to the number of arguments a function invoked by a module can take. There's another advantage, and that is that the gallery can be scalable, so some cards with a ton of unique prints (like Basic Energy cards) don't need to separate galleries.
{{TCG Card|img=RaihanEvolvingSkies152.jpg|caption={{TCG|Evolving Skies}} Regular print|artist=take}}
{{TCG Card|img=RaihanEvolvingSkies220.jpg|caption={{TCG|Evolving Skies}} ultra rare print|artist=kirisAki}}
{{TCG Card|img=RaihanEvolvingSkies224.jpg|caption={{TCG|Evolving Skies}} rainbow rare print|artist=kirisAki}}
{{TCG Card|img=RaihanSilverTempestTG27.jpg|set=Silver Tempest|illus=kirisAki}}
{{TCG Card|img=RaihanCrownZenith140.jpg|caption={{TCG|Crown Zenith}} regular print|artist=Hideki Ishikawa}}
{{TCG Card|img=RaihanCrownZenithGG65.jpg|caption={{TCG|Galarian Gallery ultra rare}} print|artist=GIDORA}}
{{TCG Card|img=RaihanSVPromo130.jpg|caption={{TCG|SV-P Promotional cards|SV-P Promotional}} print|artist=hncl}}
In this template, the artist parameter can be left empty, and the card will not have any illustrator information, or it can be set to None. illus is Illus. by default and can be overridden to provide e.g. Photo. (like on Chansey (Base Set 3)). The artist is not linked so that the template will categorize automatically (but should be able to deactivated for testing), and if there are multiple applicable artists, like with Cynthia & Caitlin (Cosmic Eclipse 189), they are separated by semicolons (artist=Ken Sugimori;Yusuke Ohmura). And if it is sufficiently complex, then one could add a credits argument instead, such as with Scyther (Undaunted 36) (credits=Illus. [[Wataru Kawahara]]/Direc. [[Shinji Higuchi]]) and categories added manually.
As for the random selection, this can be done:
|{{TCG Card|img=RaihanEvolvingSkies152.jpg|caption={{TCG|Evolving Skies}} Regular print|artist=take}}
|{{TCG Card|img=RaihanEvolvingSkies220.jpg|caption={{TCG|Evolving Skies}} ultra rare print|artist=kirisAki}}
|{{TCG Card|img=RaihanEvolvingSkies224.jpg|caption={{TCG|Evolving Skies}} rainbow rare print|artist=kirisAki}}
|{{TCG Card|img=RaihanSilverTempestTG27.jpg|set=Silver Tempest|illus=kirisAki}}
|{{TCG Card|img=RaihanCrownZenith140.jpg|caption={{TCG|Crown Zenith}} regular print|artist=Hideki Ishikawa}}
|{{TCG Card|img=RaihanCrownZenithGG65.jpg|caption={{TCG|Galarian Gallery ultra rare}} print|artist=GIDORA}}
|{{TCG Card|img=RaihanSVPromo130.jpg|caption={{TCG|SV-P Promotional cards|SV-P Promotional}} print|artist=hncl}}
with a Module:Random with a choice function that looks like this:
function p.choice(frame)
    indexes = {}
    -- For performance reasons, frame.args uses a metatable, so the length operator doesn't work, but pairs works
    -- As a workaround, I will add just the keys to the indexes table
    for k, _ in pairs(frame.args) do
        table.insert(indexes, k)
    len = math.max(unpack(indexes)) -- get the list's length
    --[[ simply taking the last element wouldn't work sometimes because of how Lua iterators work,
    so the order of the elements in the table may not match the original wiktext order ]]
    return frame.args[math.random(len)] -- take a random choice
--Bfdifan2006 (talk | contribs) 16:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I've made an attempt at modular segments based around a single "default box" here. I've always found it very strange that Trainers and Energy have those words at the top of the infobox, above the title of the subject, so the main infobox is just a name and image. And I'm personally leaning towards the infobox only having a single static image; there's usually at least one person a year confused by the base print not being in the infobox and bringing it up on a talk page. And that's only the person who bothered to make an account, there's likely dozens more that get confused and think they're on the wrong page but never speak up. We already have all the images in the gallery anyways. glikglak 21:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Categories for attacks unreleased in English

It appears that we are going to have categories for all attacks including those that have appeared in no English-language cards, right? This has been discussed a little on Discord today. For instance, this one has no official English name yet: Category:Cards with Scream.

Personally, I would be in favor of having categories for all attacks. The categories can be renamed if/when the attack gets an official English name. Having a complete coverage of attack categories helps seeing which attacks are shared between cards (even if unreleased in English) and how many attacks exist.

I would also suggest that we can start using some kind of template similar to {{TCG Unreleased}} to let people know when an attack has no official English name. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You could just have the names be "Cards with _____ (Japanese symbols I can't type)" to mirror the way Leaf Tornado's categories work. Category:Cards with Leaf Tornado (グラスミキサー). Salmancer (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
In the case of Leaf Tornado, I created 2 separate categories because the "same" English attack has two different Japanese names: Category:Cards with Leaf Tornado (グラスミキサー) and Category:Cards with Leaf Tornado (リーフトルネード).
So the idea would basically be renaming "Category:Cards with Scream" into "Category:Cards with さけび", right? I wonder if many people would prefer those kinds of categories with Japanese names. Personally, I think the English (unofficial translation) is fine since it requires no Japanese skills to type and read, and presumably all those cards with the same Japanese attack should have the same translation anyway. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it should be OK to use English unofficial translations in the attack categories since we use those translations as the attack names in the card articles anyway. If we decided that the "main" way to refer to a TCG attack must never be an unofficial translation, then I suppose we would have to call the attack by their Japanese names in the articles too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the idea. Not one of my better ones though, for those reasons. A template would work. It probably should be a parameter in the category's text template, since unlike a card page these category pages are done entirely by template. Salmancer (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Unrelated but can we like, not make attack categ pages for cards that have yet to see English translations? (eg. Category:Cards with Strange Hack, Category:Cards with Love Resonance). Since, you know, the official translation may differ compared to ours, or they may just change the names altogether (eg. "Strange Hack" may be renamed to "Strange Hacking" for the official English translation, cf. Mew ex). anZAsquiddles 2222(:D)SSSS (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree, since the category is likely to get abandonded later and if we dont remember to do so when we clear the category were gonna end up with a bunch of things that need deleting. Just makes what in my opinion is an already messy project even more so. 4iamking 17:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
My opinion is this: If possible, I would be in favor of creating categories for all attacks (including ones with no official names). That is, having the complete coverage of TCG attacks rather than an incomplete list.
If an attack category is empty, it would be automatically placed in Category:Attack categories for deletion. For this reason, there will be no problem of forgetting to delete empty categories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Basic _ Energy

On the back of the earlier conversation at #Type symbol representation as letters, I think its good to start a conversation about if we want to move the 9 Basic energy pages to reflect their current terminology by adding the word "Basic" to the page title, seeing as move templates have already been placed on a few pages. In terms of history, this terminology change occured during the Sword and Shield Series internationally, though occuring much earlier in the Asian TCG (LEGEND Series). In the Sword and Shield Series, The "Basic___Energy" terminology was first found in the Chilling Reign Player's guide (which was the first set in the series to feature a basic energy card in its set list), and subsequently followed up in the players guide of Evolving Skies, Fusion Strike and Crown Zenith. TCG Live used this terminology since its launch with the Brilliant Stars expansion. Since the Scarlet & Violet Series launch all new products refer to "Basic___Energy" and the last mention of "___Energy" occured on the back of the Origin Forme Palkia VSTAR League Battle Deck product box, incidentally one of the last new products to lauch with exclusively Sword and Shield Series cards. Official Setlists such as the one for Prize Pack Series 1 and card databases reaffirm that TPC uses this updated terminology even when referring to older prints of cards, without the card name being printed on it.

Given that we are also attempting to use official terminology as a matter of principle, even if it changes over time, I therfore would suggest we move the pages in question. Doing so will also give us the additional benefit of unifing all Basic Energy types under the (TCG) suffix, which currently doesnt happen due to the need to differentiate basic and special varients of darkness and metal energy prints. 4iamking 01:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm in support, esp to resolve the whole Darkness and Metal basic/special energies thing. anZAsquiddles 2222(:D)SSSS (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Should we be treating them special in that way? Why wouldn't we just be treating them as regular cards with prints, where their first print and page title should be at the Base Set title? MaverickNate 01:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I would say yes, given that they are a core mechanic to the game, but even then TPC treats old prints as having this updated naming convention, even though the card name isnt printed on the card. Even if we moved if we did this it should still be Basic Grass Energy (Base Set 99) for example... but given the ubiquity of the cards and what they represent, I really dont recommend this. 4iamking 01:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Its also worth noting that a large portion of these cards dont belong to any set at all. 4iamking 01:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
TCG Live Strikes! Turns out, its exports very much care about the exact set cards come from... unless those cards happen to be the Basic Energy. You'll notice if you export a decklist, it'll append set abbreviations and numbers to everything but the basic Energy. It does so with inconsistency with Basic Energy, a whole bunch are just from an "Energy" set with a number attached. (I'm guessing these are new cards designed to give all players free access to every non special artwork of Basic Energy at a 59 count.) It's too new to include any of the cases where a card name has changed, but this does demonstrably prove the Basic Energy get special treatment in the rules. I'd post the export but that would take up space. I guess sometimes some cards do get special treatment. Salmancer (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Honestly i dont know I normally would consider PTCGL a primary source but the way setless basic energies are implemented in that game does feel kinda hacky... My comment was really more directed at nate suggesting we name them after their first print... well the first fairy energy print is an unnumbered XY era print so it belongs to no set. 4iamking 22:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)