Talk:List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GFDL PokéBall design
Pokémon Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pokémon, which aims to improve the encyclopedic coverage of the Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project, ask for advice, and see what our current focuses are.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
PCP To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets article.
Article policies

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)
Wrong. The American version of Dark Raichu was a regular rare and of regular rarity; Wizards of the Coast had a policy against creating "super rares". You had the same chance of getting a Dark Raichu as you would any other rare from that set. It's only 83/82 simply to avoid detection on card lists of the time. Also, Dark Raichu was released in Japan in their Neo 2 set, not in their Rocket set; THAT card was "super rare", though. -- Nick15 04:00, 26 May 2007 (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:
  1. The main details about the sets as outlined in this article
  2. Details on notable cards for each set, with some details in this article (and plenty more on my PC)
  3. Timelines, detailing the set's releases in North America, Europe and Japan, and the set that came directly before/after them
  4. Set lists for all sets
  5. 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)

  1. I don't see why this list can't do that.
  2. Likewise.
  3. Absolutely not. That's raw source material, and that belongs on Wikisource (or, you know, a PM TCG fansite.)
  4. 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 Poop

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.

[edit] lack of info

hopefully someone's watching this page... i was hoping that information like what set were new features (e.g. poke-bodies) introduced? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}, I suppose. The articles weren't very helpful when I merged them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

i would if i knew the info... but i'm not at all familiar with the TCG and have no idea where to find specific info like that (you gimme a {{solookitup}} without something other than pokebeach i'll bite you! ;) ). I know the articles were less than informative, i'm just hoping that someone will see this discussion, know the info and put it in... is SpinachDip still active...? mebbe i'll go ask him specifically. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. I could send you to Pojo or Pokegym, but just like Beach and Serebii they're fansites run without editorial oversight. They're hardly reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
And don't I know it. Well, I'd love to help, but I can't find anything useful other than from the official TCG site, which is rubbish anyway. Besides, I'm still moving everything to its own wiki (exams getting in the way if it being finished already). Cipher (Talk to the hand) 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors I've Spotted

I played the TCG back since the beginning up until EX FireRed-LeafGreen, and used to maintain a Pokémon TCG website which stored all the little tidbits and trivia I've picked up about the game. In reading this article I've spotted some glaring errors, however I'm not too familiar with the Wikipedia article writing rules enough to go through and change everything. I will, however, state what I believe to be errors and my explination for it. A lot of it is pulled from here.

Base Set

  • It is one of few sets to include Fighting, Fire, Grass, Lightning, Psychic and Water Energy cards - A lot of sets include Basic energy cards. I don't know if this is a relavent line.

Fossil

  • One intention of this set is to complete the 151 species of Pokémon from the first generation. - Just FYI, the Japanese set included Mew, the Wizard set did not. Therefore, the Wizard's version of Fossil only completed 150 Pokémon.
  • This might explain why Fossil contains the fewest cards of any standard set in the card game. - The Japanese set had 64 cards, the same as Jungle. The Wizards set was 62, only because Mew was taken out.

Base Set 2

  • This is because by the time it was released, those two sets were considered "too old" and unusable in tournaments. - Not really. I really don't know why exactly it was made, but I suspect it had more to do with Wizards' habit of making reprint sets than anything else. I doubt it had anything to do with tournaments because all the cards used in the best tournament decks of the time (like Hitmonchan and Professor Oak) were reprinted. This was also before Modified existed. BS2's tournament purpose is in contrast to Legendary Collection, a reprint set that WAS built with tournaments in mind; they did not reprint broken cards in LC and kept useable cards which would have been rotated out of Modified to begin with.

Team Rocket

  • This proved unpopular with competitive play, and Dark Pokémon would not show a strong presence - From what I remember, Dark Vileplume was very popular. Though I figure that if you're gonna say Dark Pokémon were unpopular, you might as well say all Pokémon were also unpopular just because they weren't used all that much.
  • This is also the first set to include a card exclusive to the English language version. As part of a promotion, an American-only Dark Raichu can be found in this set, though it is the rarest card. The card number for Dark Raichu states "83/82". - Actually, it was Wizards' first, but not a Wizards' exclusive; it was reprinted in Japan in Neo 2. I'm sure it was released in other countries which Wizards produced the Pokémon TCG for, it's not really "American-only". Likewise, its rarity is no different than any other holo-rare card of the set, it just didn't have a nonholo counterpart. Wizards apparently had a policy against producing "ultra-rares". It was an ultra-rare when it was released in Japan, though.

Gym Heores

  • While all eight Gym Leaders are represented, - Actually, only the first six Gym Leaders have cards in this set. Neither Koga nor Giovanni have cards in this set. Just check the card list.
  • Additionally, some of the "Rare" cards had little or no value in play, - While that's true for the Wizards' set, those cards were of Fixed rarity in the Japanese set. Wizards thought that since they were Fixed cards in the Japanese set, and that Wizards' didn't deal with Fixed cards, they must be made into Rares.

Gym Challenge

  • Its name comes from the Gym Leaders it focuses on. - That, and the original Japanese set was called "Challenge From the Dark" or something of that extent. Since I'm sure Wizards' didn't want to call it "Gym Villians" (opposite of "Gym Heroes"), they just lifted the word "Challenge" from the original set.
  • It features the last four Pokémon Gyms in Kanto encountered in the video games and the Gym Leaders who own them - The Japanese set did, yes. The Wizards' set however just had all eight Gym Leaders together.

Neo Genesis

  • The design on the cards have also changed, now looking closer to the Japanese version. - Well, to be technical, the Japanese cards changed as well between their Gym 2 and their Neo 1 sets. The Wizards' version of Neo 1 just added those changes to their card design.

Southern Islands

  • Though it is often considered the tenth set, - It was released around the same time as Gym 2 in Japan, versus before Neo Revelation by Wizards'. I wouldn't stick this in the set list myself.

Neo Destiny

  • Perhaps the reason why Light Pokémon have not seen an appearance after this set is because... - Does this line of speculation need to be in there?

Legendary Collection

  • Its purpose is to make these cards legal in tourmanent play; otherwise, these cards would be considered "too old." - I wouldn't say "too old" as much as "illegal for Modified play".
  • Strangely, even though this set is an amalgamation of four sets, this set contains fewer cards than any of the following three. - I wouldn't say that that's strange, the purpose of a reprint set like Legendary Collection is to reintroduce cards into Modified tournament play which originally would have been rotated out.
  • This set is the last to be owned by Wizards of the Coast .... began publishing the game in North America on their own. - Totally wrong. The issue of Wizards losing the TCG license wouldn't come into play at least a year after this set was released (this was released in May 24th, 2002). Nor was this set the last one produced by Wizards; Skyridge was (May 12th, 2003).

Expedition

  • This may be the reason why cards in the Expedition set are noticeably thicker than previous sets. - I could be wrong, but I doubt there is any thickness difference between Card-E and regular cards.

OK, that's all the errors I've spotted that I have any authority to comment on. -- Nick15 04:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aye.. Next to "First Generation"

When I went to this section, this is what I found.

First Generation ====Base Set==== These cards SUCKED!!!

I'm sure nobody objects to this deletion.- Yoshirox10

[edit] Addition

I added the symbol for the Southern Islands set.

[edit] Error Pikachu?

Could someone please show me whats wrong with the pikachu of irregularity? It does not look like an "error" to me. the only difference i see is the symbol on the right? Blkeddie! 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

HP text isn't bold, and the little text box right under the artwork isn't slanted.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not the reason. It's because the illustration has red cheeks, when it's supposed to have yellow cheeks. Cipher (Talk to the hand) 15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Base set list" page

Base set list - I've removed the link from the page, can somebody please set this article up for deletion. Wikipedia is not the place for this; stuff like this can be found as fan wikis like Bulbapedia, where it actually belongs. Cipher (Talk to the hand) 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Crystalguardians.jpg

Image:Crystalguardians.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EX Legend Maker logo.png

Image:EX Legend Maker logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EX Unseen Forces logo.png

Image:EX Unseen Forces logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Base Set redirection

It's probably not appropriate to redirect 'Base Set' to this page - this has other meanings in mathematics... perhaps better to introduce a disambiguation page? MackSalmon (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Crystalguardians.jpg

Image:Crystalguardians.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Shining darkness redirect

This is the title of an upcoming Doctor Who novel, so soon an article of this title will need to be created; hence, the redirect will need to be deleted. Thus, the Doctor Who/Pokémon projects may see some interaction in the near future. I'm just mentioning it before the issue comes up. 90.211.130.229 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that there'd be a problem with that - it's only a Japanese set name after all. ;-) Cipher (Talk) 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regular Contributors (Please Read)

I have tagged this page for deletion for the reasons noted on its articles for deletion page: please read and consider, this needs deleting. Cheers, Cipher (Talk) 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)