• A reminder that Forum Moderator applications are currently still open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Pokemon Card titles.

Z

Zeta

Bulbapædist
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
7,483
Reaction score
715
The time has come to decide how to list cards in the pedia. This is a problem because there are many different cards with the same names.

My idea is to list two to three letters indicating the set, followed by the number of the card in the set, followed by the card's name.

So Base Set's Alakazam would be:

"BS-1 Alakazam"

What do you think? Or should the name be full?:

"Base Set 1 Alakazam"?

Or should the card's name come first?
 
I agree with Jeff. That's usually how it's done on Wikipedia (not in terms of Pokemon cards, but other things which need disambiguation).
 
Alright, glad to have that settled! ^_^
 
welll
Most of the older cards go by level.
For example Charizard Lv78
If there is another card is the same level but different artwork, it can be
Charizard Lv76 (Alternative)

But the cards after VS must have a code number/card number
 
I think identifying them by set would be better, simply because you can't have two cards in the same set--I don't think. Are there any repeats?

If so, then....um, I dunno.
 
I believe that there are repeats in the form of foil and non-foil versions, but that is easily dealt with.
 
In the system we've got now, it would just be "Lombre (EX Deoxys 33)". ^^
 
Actually, given that there are not many of those, I think what would be best is to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. I would have also gone with Lombre (EX Deoxys #33), but # is not a valid title character... Yet (EX Deoxys 33) looks plain wrong. Blah.

For the older sets where the only duplicates are holo/non-holo, I would keep things simple and use (Base Set) or (Fossil), and so on.

Though, I wonder, how do we deal with the issue of (Base Set 2)?
 
Last edited:
Actually, given that there are not many of those, I think what would be best is to deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...

Actually, they become very common starting with the EX sets. Most Pokemon have two cards each (totally different) in those, especially the more popular ones like the Starters. By standardizing the titles for all the cards, we keep things looking professional.

I would have also gone with Lombre (EX Deoxys #33), but # is not a valid title character... Yet (EX Deoxys 33) looks plain wrong. Blah.
Click to expand...

And some would say that while "Pikachu (Pokemon)" is neccessary to distinguish from the character, "Dugtrio (Pokemon)" is not a neccessary title, but we added that anyways just so that we'd have a particular standard . . . I think adding the number for each set is useful. For one, it generally tells collectors what order their cards should be in. For another, it makes it less confusing to have SOME numbered cards and SOME un-numbered. For another, it distinguishes many cards from holo duplicates, promotional versions, and seperate but same named cards . . .

Though, I wonder, how do we deal with the issue of (Base Set 2)?
Click to expand...

Good question. I wasn't sure if I should put links to the previous cards on that page, or if I should have put new links up and had redirects or what . . .
 
Absolute standards only lead to insanity. Keep it simple, especially for the older sets. We don't do Pikachu (Pokémon 025) or Mew (Pokémon 151) or Deoxys (Pokémon 386) do we? Indeed, in my opinion, this is more professional.

I see no problem with two systems.

On a related note, I did not really like the (Pokémon) classifier either, but now, there will be at least one TCG article for each of these Pokémon pages now. Probably.

If it ever comes that we need separate disambiguation pages for each Pokémon page, I suggest that the title without a classifier still remain a redirect to the general article, if not be the general article itself.
 
Please note: The thread is from 20 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom