Talk:List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Neo Revelation Symbol
Neo Revelation's symbol is not a drop of water or a reference to the Red Gyarados. What it is is a representation of the Three Beasts fleeing from the Burned Tower. This is easily seen from the booster packs -- the background is an old, darkened building with arched supports; Suicune, Raikou, and Entei all appear (as Sugimori art) on booster packs, along with Misdreavus; and the Neo Revelation symbol is replicated on the booster packs with the left extension red, the middle extension blue, and the right extension yellow -- obviously referring to the colors and/or elements of the Beasts. (The bottom part of the symbol is shown as a ribbon that says "Revelation"; Neo is in large letters slightly obscuring the extensions.) 67.54.145.95 01:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page Information
This is a work in progress; I still need to {{fact}} all the dubious claims, turn the "notable cards" into bulleted lists (and weed them out), and rewrite the intro for each section. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Should this be merged in, too? (EX Team Rocket Returns, EX Emerald) (no idea why i'm working on an article that deals with a topic i neither like nor know anything about) --elias.hc 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, the rest of the sets need to be merged, too. I'll get on that; RL stuff intervened in the middle of this merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weird statement
- "As part of a promotion, an American-only Raichu can be found in this set, though it is the rarest card." - Team Rocket set section
I was a collector of Pokémon cards up to the Gym Leader set, and I recall that the Dark Raichu was available in the Japanese set, and was the rarest card, being a white star. In America, Dark Raichu was devalued to a black star, same rarity as other black stars. Japanese card American card Is this just weird phrasing or something? ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dark Raichu is listed as being 83/82, which in the American versions seems to indicate a "super rare" holo. If you look at other sets, you'll see those listed as the rarest. Crazedgiggles 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Base Set
I've moved all the information from the Base Set bit to the new Base Set page, and I've enabled a hyperlink from the title to the page. I'll do this with all the other pages shortly. Double Dash 20:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Augh, please don't do that. We don't need individual articles on each set of the Pokémon TCG; there's just not much that's encyclopedic that you can say about them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with you concerning the Wizards sets. But not the Pokémon USA sets; I've already made six pages for PUSA sets, with plenty of information on them. However, may I suggest actually making a page for each set - yes, it may make a lot more 'unnecessary' pages, but I have a lot of information I could put on these pages:
- The main details about the sets as outlined in this article
- Details on notable cards for each set, with some details in this article (and plenty more on my PC)
- Timelines, detailing the set's releases in North America, Europe and Japan, and the set that came directly before/after them
- Set lists for all sets
- Pictures of cards, sometimes set logos and set symbols
I would do this, and I will do this, if you feel it'll work. If you're not sure, just let me try it out with the Base Set, then you can decide. I strongly feel this would work. For an example of my work, click here. I've also done every set after and including Unseen Forces. Double Dash 20:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see why this list can't do that.
- Likewise.
- Absolutely not. That's raw source material, and that belongs on Wikisource (or, you know, a PM TCG fansite.)
- Again, not seeing why this can't go in this list.
You're talking about a level of detail completely unsuited to Wikipedia, and the EX Delta Species article is full of original research evaluating the cards and personal opinion, neither of which is appropriate to Wikipedia. This isn't bad writing, but it's how-to and OR and POV, none of which belong in any encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think alot of people need some sorta history/checklist on all the sets, especially older players like myself. I've played since the original set was out and its hard to find a 'GOOD' checklist on the internet, at least one that tells everything about everything from all the way back and includes all error and promo info too. And don't lay some crap on me that the more recent sets have a bigger importance. Also I swear I saw a whole page about the Base Set not to long ago. Did one of you delete that?? Why might I ask did you delete that?? If you tell me its just taking up space, well I think theres thousands of pages on wikipedia like that. The bottom line is that there should be some sort of detailed database that emcompasses ALL pokemon cards in ENGLISH that have been made. You can't find one of those on the internet today, so why not have one on wikipedia i ask you? hows this raw source material anyway?? Look at any band or comic page. Thats alot of info isnt it? Also I dont want to start a whole site, I think wikipedia serves that purpose already for alot of reasons.
Checklists are guides, and Wikipedia isn't for guides. The newer sets aren't more important; I just haven't gotten around to merging the articles closer to the bottom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
That Cleanup box at the top of the article has been there for donkey's years now. Has anyone done anything about it? Have they, heck. If I'm being honest, I see no need for this article at all. I would just move all information on sets to their own articles, expand on them, then have links to those articles on the Pokémon Trading Card Game page and be rid of this page. It's pointless - if anyone has any better ideas, say so, else I'm just gonna do this, consent or no consent. If I get no reply by Saturday 12 August, I will do this. Double Dash 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The cleanup that needs to be done is the removal of POV choices of "notable cards," as well as the addition of reliable source citations. Splitting this up is just going to result in the addition of more unsourced, original research analysis of each set. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, then, I'll get rid of all the Notable Cards bits if that helps. Double Dash 20:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Error
Nintendo's first published set was EX Ruby and Sapphire. I began making changes to fix this.GooTuM 04:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adding Other Sets
I'm going to try to make new pages for all the sets, however im not really sure how to link them all together in a organized way. Once I make new pages for the other sets, can someone fix them so they are all easily accessible from this main page? I think I'll try to add a promo/error/special/other cards databases too...
And maybe instead of having a long drawn out page like this, why dont we break it up into a main page for the basic info and links, and then just have a bunch of links to each individual set?? Is there some sin against god in doing that? Cause with all your disagreements about how to have this page and all the other pages look, you dont seem to be really doing much in the terms of resolving the quality issues.
- Splitting this up is just going to result in the addition of more unsourced, original research analysis of each set. Feel free to write a referenced article, but a split that adds nothing but unsourced evaluation, checklists, extra fair-use images, or other unencyclopedic content will be reverted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well there lies a problem, if you go to the official site they only list new sets, and no promo info at all. And what do you mean a referenced article? Like I can pull up several sites that shows the complete lists for older sets and some other info, however they are usually not complete and have conflicting info sorta.
- Have you considered using Pokebeach instead? They have complete lists; there's no need to shoehorn that info into this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well they dont include promos, errors, shadowless, etc. info do they? Not to mention they tell practically nothing about the sets themselves. I mean I want a comprehensive understanding of each set individually. Their history, what all is included in the sets, other info, etc. This is what i mean by lots of these lists already on the net. They are not complete and give you a little taste of the whole picture, not the whole thing. Like if you would go on pojo.com for example there is some info, but its incomplete for one thing, and it doesnt give you all the info. Like I think the formats and info for the new sets already on wiki are looking great. But need to be completed with all the other cards.
Yea well id still like to help you improve the quality of this and other pokemon tcg pages on wikipedia. Like im an old collector just getting back into collecting and i know ALOT about the whole game and its history. like ill make some minor changes to the page right now cause i think there needs to be an improvement and possible reduction in the size of the article. Like that real nitty gritty info like that says its before this set and after that set. thats too much info honestly. and the southern islands set came out long long after the base set 2.