User talk:Happy Mask Man

I just wanted to say great job so far on adding to the TCG section. It's an area of the Bulbapedia that's needed attention desperately since we started. Thanks a lot. --Zeta 16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

TCG stuff

• Regarding the names of the Theme Decks; I know all of the original decks have "Theme Deck" below the name and the newer ones just have "Deck", but the fact that nearly all of the expansions and all related categories/articles have TCG after the name (to avoid confusion with other media) and the fact that the Theme Decks are listed in an article aptly named "Theme Deck", there really doesn't seem much point in renaming them from (TCG) to Theme Deck. To save you renaming all of those articles, it would seem sensible to revert those you moved back to their original location. Sorry to nag, but it just seems a gargantuan and pointless task to undertake.
• Thanks for including levels in the checklists, as it saves confusion with like named cards in the same set. However, do you have a solution to those after the Neo series, as they no longer include levels?
• Also, the Japanese list structure for Base Set needs to be modified slightly. I've been working on these myself but haven't uploaded them yet. Although they don't have numbers, they stick to a pattern (which you've got partly right), which goes Type (Grass-Fire-Water-Lightning-Psychic-Fighting-Colorless-Dark-Metal), National Dex number, and ascending rarity (Common-Uncommon-Rare-Holographic Rare-EX Rare-Star/Lv.X).

Regards, nuva-kal 16:50, 10th February 2007 (BST)

As for Theme Decks, I just thought it would make more sense to use the whole name. That, and I'd like, say, "Blaine (TCG)" to be reserved for the Trainer card. I don't really think that we need the (TCG) thing for every TCG-related article. Besides, it can't be that huge a task compared to making an article on every card there is, right? If (TCG) is that important, you could always move stuff to "(something-or-other) Theme Deck (TCG)." As for levels, cards that don't have them simply won't list them. That should be easy enough, right? For the sets that aren't numbered, I used the numbering system of the card list on the Japanese Pokémon Card Game site. For the sets that are numbered, they'll simply be listed by number.

The (TCG) thing is just something I have become accustomed to using, because it was somehting everyone else was using when I started to do the expansion set articles - what can I say, I'm a sucker for continuity and neatness! I just think that ordering it in such a fasion makes everything feel more "ordered", you know? Plus I think it is a standard system everyone editing within the TCG categories uses.

As for the Trainer cards, this has been an ongoing discussion, especially between Pie and Zhen Lin on how to order the cards regarding name extensions. Although trainer cards were originally linked "name" (TCG), I changed those in Base Set to "name" (Base Set), as some cards (e.g. Potion) have multiple incarnations in later sets, so not to be confused with the original (so any other sets with a different potion like e Expedition and EX Ruby & Sapphire can be put in separate articles). Although with Potion, the only major difference is the art, but with others, text may have been altered to better fit understanding or to follow with updates in playing format. In the case of Blaine, instead of Blaine (TCG), it could be Blaine (Gym Challenge).

The way I see it, each Pokémon will have a page listing all cards of that Pokémon, and each Trainer card will have an article listing all prints of that card. There'd be "Bill (TCG)" and "Bill (Base Set)" as separate articles. That's why I'm trying to keep articles that are the names of cards reserved. -Happy Mask Man 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, the only thing holding this whole project back is decent images of the cards themselves, which would replace the reverse card image you have on the card articles. I'd submit a lot of the images myself, but my scanner is awful at producing suitable images, and it would take a heck of a long time (i'm only on dial-up here). --nuva-kal 20:19, 10th February 2007 (BST)

Image problem is taken care of. -Happy Mask Man 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you changing the naming scheme for fossil from "Lv. ##" to "LV.##"? --Pie ^~♪♫ 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, according to the official Pokémon Trading Card game site, it's LV.##. They just announced the return of them, see. The LV.X game mechanic. -Happy Mask Man 19:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're going with "LV.##"? Because I'm not leaving half the cards named one way and half the other. --Pie ^~♪♫ 19:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Like I said earlier, I like to keep naming consistant. I'm planning on moving everything after I'm done with the Fossil set. -Happy Mask Man 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been talking about it to Archaic - every time I look at the TCG section I hate it. There's no good reason not to use the English numbers because this is an English-based encyclopedia and for the few that never made it into English we can use something besides the number in the name - like (Base Set Japanese) instead of (Base Set 124) or whatever. Find me an editor who agrees with using levels and we'll go for that system, but as a Style Editor - I feel this system is just bad, pointless, ugly, etc. And so I'm ruling that we don't use it. --Pie ^~♪♫ 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've really put a lot of work into thinking of all of the classification, formats, and such. Every card series that changes the style of the cards. I spent months working on it. I found that the English numbering was the least effective. I did have Zhen Lin look over everything to make sure it was all good, which it was. Oh, and scroll up a bit and you will see that Zeta also likes it. I looked over the cards in every set to make sure it would work. It works perfectly for sets that are rearranged, split, or left out, which happens with every set nowadays. I really don't see what makes levels so much more hatable and ugly than the other numbers. They work a lot like them, but better. Please. I am trying my best to make this card database greater than any before it. I've put careful thought into all of the details. I haven't seen any terrible flaws yet. -Happy Mask Man 02:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just the names and category sorting of the articles - the content is fine. I cannot find anyone who thinks the current system is good. You check any list and they are ordered by the English set number. This is how most people sort and identify them. I have talked to Archaic, head of Bulbagarden, PPN, head of PPN, and the Bulbagarden IRC chat, multiple other editors - everyone agrees with me that it's better to sort by set number. There's no reason why for the few cards which do not have set numbers we can work out an alternative arrangement. We're English-based - let's sort them the way all English lists sort them. --Pie ^~♪♫ 04:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But they are sorted by English set numbers. The articles on sets have the English lists first and foremost. There's no problem with it at all. All of the Pokémon articles are sorted by their Pokédex numbers, but Bulbasaur is not named "Bulbasaur (No. 001)". The name of the article doesn't have a thing to do with sorting and order on the set's page. Let's say, for example, the set EX Power Keepers. That set wasn't even released in Japan. If you look at the article on that set, it will have a list of all of the cards in that set by the English numbering system. After all, that is the only one that exists for that set... But even though that set was made with the numbering system, there's no need to have the set's numbers in all of the articles. Really, all that's needed is, say, "Aggron (EX Power Keepers)". There's no need for a number there. Sure, there's no number in the name, but the set is still very much sorted by the numbers, just like every other set. It was never about "not using the numbering system", just not putting them in all of the article names. All of the lists and such of the English set will still order by number, just like all of the Pokémon lists order by number even though the articles don't have numbers in their title. -Happy Mask Man 04:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You deliberately took out the numbers to put them in set order for their categories. Categories are intended to double as auto-generated lists. This is why I am also talking about category sorting. And if it doesn't matter what they're numbered, then why not name them according to the number most people identify them as? In fact, while I was against it before, we might as well just identify them by set in the early sets where there aren't separate ones. Better than sticking the levels in the name of every article when it's a rather pointless piece of information and, quite honestly, looks ugly. --Pie ^~♪♫ 04:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It will work until you get till the EX Series - when you have sets with multiple Pokemon with different cards and no levels to differentiate them. Then it will all fall apart. --Zeta 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That has all been planned for as well. The only reason that there are cards with the same name in the newer sets is that more than one Japanese set is mixed into an English set. By separating the sets out, that problem will be taken care of. -Happy Mask Man 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not very helpful for people who play the US game, though. : / --Zeta 04:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)