Talk:Pokémon-EX (TCG)

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. ^Maverick_Nate 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)