Talk:Pokémon Trading Card Game

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)

Naming System

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

Examples

• Alakazam (BS001)
• Blastoise (BS002)
• Chansey (BS003)
• Charizard (BS004)
• Clefairy (BS005)
• Gyarados (BS006)

Plau

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.

Unclassified promos

Arcanine (Toyota promo) doesn't fall under any of the current promo categories. I believe this might be a problem. --Raijinili

Named Pokémon

In the Types of Cards list, does Named Pokémon mean Owner's Pokémon, ______'s Pokémon, or both? -Groudon465^Talk

Rarity

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)

The lines at the top talk about what is normal for each Pokémon. Since the text is for what is normal, it doesn't go by what the VS set says, because the VS set isn't one of the main sets. They should not be changed. ^Maverick_Nate 14:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon-Star says hi. They're not evolved. Cipher ^(Talk) 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither are the movie half deck cards. ^Maverick_Nate 16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rules?

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. ^Maverick_Nate 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)

Sub-Set/Mini-Set Expansions?

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? ^Maverick_Nate 18:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

weird card

I found a strange card while surfing the web (follow the link) [1]--Ash0011 02:52, 22 January 2011 (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)

Chance are??? It took me 0.000001 seconds to see it is a fake. Look at the ridiculous stats and descriptions - Vhayes1992 05:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And lol in bottom right of the picture - Vhayes1992 05:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

oooh I thought it was like the shadow lugia card--Ash0011 22:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)