Talk:EX Starter Box

This is the talk page for discussing the page, EX Starter Box.
This page is for discussing how to improve the page. For general discussion and comments, use the general discussion forum. To ask about rulings or how cards work, use the ruling queries forum. To get help with building a Deck, use the Deck help forum. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Please try to Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming

Distinguishing new cards

I thought that distinguishing the new cards in this set was a good idea. I've actually wondered about doing that for things like Structure Deck listings, maybe by having the new cards' names appear in bold or something. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 14:21, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

While as-is it's probably not the ideal way to do it (I've recieved feedack with improvement suggestions that I never got around to implementing), I have played around some with that type of distinction on Vol.1 and Booster 1. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 15:39, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

I thought I'd remembered you agreeing with me when I brought this up years ago, but I've wrongly referenced you in the past. I like what you've done there. More descriptive than I had in mind, but that's helpful. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 16:02, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

If we want to state how many new cards certain sets introduces into the game, I don't see why a simple line in the 'Features' or 'Breakdown' sections of the article saying "Introduces X new cards into the OCG/TCG (as applicable)", rather than listing each and every card individually. We already have the lists integrated into the pages, so having it again, just in a different format seems redundant to me. PhotonLegion95 (talk • contribs) 16:50, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm going to pair with Photon here. I like the set pages to have a paragraph with a short introduction, saying what kind of set is and all. I also like having some curiosities or trivia about it; a citation from the official blurb, in some cases. But the longer the prose gets, the less people will bother to read it.

I do find it interesting to note how many cards a set introduces, if it is a set that contains mostly reprints (like Structure Decks, or reprint sets like the Tins, or the Battle Packs, Tournament Packs, etc.); but I think such should be done, like Photon said, with a line under the "breakdown" section or even under the "features" section, saying the set introduces N new cards and, possibly, why, if the other medium already has it, if they are imports, well, a small description, if needed.

Now, listing 17 card names there is just "no" from me. Looks cloggy, makes the text looks larger and less appealing at a first sight. If it introduces, say, two card, it's fine. An example I consider nice would be Battle Pack: Epic Dawn#Features. Becasita ^Pendulum (talk • contribs) 17:08, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

It seems strange to me to say that seventeen of the eighty five cards are new, but not say which ones they are.

Maybe the list can be adapted. e.g. add an extra column or highlight/bold names to flag them as new cards. Like how episode pages use italics to flag cards that debut. On a more general level, I think bold works better than italic, because it's possible for something that premieres to naturally be presented in italics. -- Deltaneos (talk) 18:40, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of using the list to note introduced cards, but that's mostly because if we also want to note cards that have been later reprinted (as I believe we do, at least for the subset of cards that were introduced in a given set), to be consistent we'd also have to note that in the list, and I don't think the list is the appropriate place to do that (among other things, this would interact really poorly with sets that have been released in more than one region, or have had more than one print); there's also the question of noting the original set for cards that are reprinted in a given set (e.g. noting which cards in Booster 1 were reprinted from Vol.1). Of course, a lot of this comes down to exactly what we want to bother noting, and how much detail we want to devote to it, though I'll echo Delt's sentiment that it really doesn't make sense to give a number of cards with a given property without also somehow listing those cards. One option might be to have a secondary list whose sole purpose is to list this information, but that might be undesirable for other reasons (primarily, just because it duplicates the card list). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 04:27, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

Dino, you're saying we should also note cards from that set that happened to be reprinted later? If so, no, I don't think that's necessary. People can just check the card page, where the info about the card is. I don't think it's necessary to try to give the most info we can about a card in the set list. Grabbing Delta's analogy, it's like, when an episode page, the card name isn't italicized; if I want to know when it debuted, I just click on it and check the first episode number; we don't need to point in which episode it debuted, everytime it appears, or if it appeared again.

I don't mind bolding the cards that debuted in the set, through the set list. I'd prefer not to; I don't think this is such of a big deal, but that's just personal opinion. Becasita ^Pendulum (talk • contribs) 09:21, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily arguing that; the reason I mentioned it is because it's currently done for many of the Series 1 sets, and has been for years, which suggests that there is some interest in having that information easily available, at least for Series 1 sets. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 17:34, April 18, 2017 (UTC)