Talk:Base Set (Pokémon)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Logan Paul's purchase of a box of Base Set cards is said to have significantly contributed to the value of the Pokémon Trading Card Game?

• Source: https://www.polygon.com/features/2021/2/25/22300688/the-pokemon-trading-card-game-just-keeps-selling-out/

• • ALT1: ... that a box of apparently unopened Base Set card packs from the Pokémon Trading Card Game was purchased by Logan Paul for $3.5 million, only to turn out to be fake? Source: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/logan-paul-spent-3-5-million-on-fake-pokemon-cards/1100-6499638/
  • ALT2: ... that despite a market crash in 2000, the Base Set of the Pokémon Trading Card Game saw a significant resurgence in the 2020s, with a box of unopened packs of cards selling for more than $1 million? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20130721180924/https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/business/pokemon-s-house-of-cards-market-crash-holds-lessons-for-young-traders.html https://www.gamespot.com/articles/watch-logan-paul-pull-the-rarest-pokemon-cards-from-a-million-dollar-box/1100-6488213/
  • ALT3: ... that a Base Set card from the Pokémon Trading Card Game depicting Charizard has gone from being worth hundreds of dollars around 2000 to being worth $420,000 in 2022? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20130721180924/https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/business/pokemon-s-house-of-cards-market-crash-holds-lessons-for-young-traders.html https://dotesports.com/pokemon/news/top-five-most-valuable-expensive-pokemon-cards
  • ALT4: ... that multiple error cards in the Base Set of the Pokémon Trading Card Game have entered public circulation, including a pre-release Raichu card that sold for $550,000? Source: https://www.thegamer.com/pokemon-tcg-error-cards/ https://www.beckett.com/news/non-existant-pokemon-tcg-raichu-base-set-prerelease-card-sold/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Horses (video game)
  • Comment: Wanted to ensure that there was a good variety of potential hooks, as I feel like this article is rife with them. Also, if an image is used, reckon it ought to be this: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

5x expanded by Cukie Gherkin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC).

• , QPQ done, hooks sourced, interesting, new enough. Olliefant (she/her) 23:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, forgot to mention, but if February 27 is reserved for Pokemon-themed articles, I would like this to be posted then. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin:, I was about to promote this to Prep 2, only to discover that there are 5 citation needed tags in the article. Please correct this. TarnishedPath^talk 03:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I went through and addressed this - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per considerable opposition based on principle of least astonishment. While an essay, it's a valid interpretation of criteria for naming articles, namely having unambiguous titles, as well as the recognizability that participants alluded to. A more natural form of disambiguation was suggested but failed to gain support. (closed by non-admin page mover) CNC (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

---

Base Set (Pokémon) → Base SetBase Set – I initially created it like this because there was apparently a "Base Set" for Magic: The Gathering, but upon further investigation, it seems like the term is just an alternative of Core Sets. From looking at things, there's no TCG set in Magic, Pokemon, or otherwise that is just called Base Set (the closes thing is other sets called, for instance, "Pokemon Diamond and Pearl Base Set"). Currently, Base Set is a redirect to "Set", but there's no entries on the disambiguation, which leads me to believe that the reader would be better served with this move. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 05:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 14:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ASTONISH. 162 etc. (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  But what might a reader expect to see from Base Set? It's not exactly a common term. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  The current redirect to Set seems fine, but I have no objection if consensus prefers to retarget to Trading card#Terminology. 162 etc. (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  The redirect to set doesn't even mention Base Set though Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Probably worth a discussion at WP:RFD then. 162 etc. (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  But doesn't that just prove the nominator's point? If there are no targets it's pointing to at all, even at the DAB, why would we need a separate discussion when there is an easy primary target right here? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, Trading card#Terminology is probably better than the dabpage. However, that's best discussed at WP:RFD, not here. My opposition to the the proposed move remains; the Pokemon set is not the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• To give more perspective: Searching Google News for "Base Set" only gives two kinds of results: 1) Articles about Pokemon cards, and 2) Articles that aren't actually about the term Base Set (i.e. "Air Force Base set to..."). Searching Wikipedia, I only see TCGs/CCGs that allude to the idea of a base set, but none actually have articles about these sets (and there's usually not a product titled "Base Set"). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I am rather unsure on this. There is also a page on Magic the Gathering cards that WP:DABMENTIONs a "Base Set". Maybe Pokémon Trading Card Game Base Set is a better WP:NATURAL title. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  There are mentions that "base set" used to be the term for core set, but my issue with that is fourfold:

  1. "Base set" doesn't appear to have been a term for a really long time in the series
  2. I can't actually find any refs in the article or outside of the article that verifies there's any sets officially called "Base Set" (except for Arena Base Set in 2020, but that obviously wouldn't lay claim to Base Set)
  3. On eBay, there doesn't appear to be any listings for a set of Magic cards with the name "Base Set"
  4. There doesn't appear to be any coverage on any Magic sets titled "Base Set"

  As far as the title goes, I find that too unwieldy for my tastes, and searching it, almost no one ever refers to it as that based on the citations used in the article (a Google News search also produces only four results). Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I do have to agree with Zx in the sense that "base set" is used in a significant manner in the Magic article. While the Pokémon one is easily more significant, it does seem true as well that the Magic sets have some potential to be an interfering search term. I'm not against a move but I'm admittedly unsure. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is I can't even verify that base set is an actual term in Magic and not just something an editor used to explain what it is Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I am seeing some results indicating that Magic: The Gathering formerly used the terminology "Base Set" before shifting to "Core Set". However, this article is also about rather old trading cards, so it would be somewhat hypocritical to say that Base Set is not a valid search term for M:TG because of that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  It's not just a matter of it being old, it's also the fact that it's an outdated naming convention for Magic, and I can't find any news sources that talk about something called a Base Set that isn't about the original Base Set line of Pokemon cards. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  There are a few recent articles about base sets in MTG, one of which is by Mark Rosewater in which he states that Foundations is an "ultimate base set." But basically, MTG uses the term base set, but brands them as "alpha, beta, nth edition" which was replaced by "core" which is now replaced by "Foundations" EulerianTrail (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. When I saw this I was very skeptical. "Base set" seems like it has a whole range of possible meanings; the thought that it would be specific to Pokémon seemed very surprising. But it's true that a Google search seems to come up overwhelmingly with Pokémon, with possibly a slightly more general meaning for collectible cards in general.
  So I guess I'm neutral. I have really no interest in games where you collect sets of cards, and I'll leave it to those who do to hash out whether the title should belong to those games in general or to Pokémon in particular. I would just caution that if someone comes up with a meaning from some widely different field, the discussion might need to be revisited. --Trovatore (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support – Surprising, but this overwhelmingly seems to be the primary meaning of "base set" on various types of internet searches. The redirect to "set" doesn't work at all, because it doesn't include any entries with "base set" in the name. That makes it a useless and confusing redirect. I don't mind "Pokémon Base Set" as a title either, but it looks to be currently unnecessary. If a different article ever wants to challenge this primary usage, we can revisit it then. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with @162 etc.. They cited WP:ASTONISH, however I am going to cite WP:NC instead, specifically the first bullet point under WP:CRITERIA. 'Base Set' alone is too vague and tells us nothing about the article. Including '(Pokémon)' instantly tells us (meaning the average reader who probably doesn't know about the Pokémon TCG specifically) it is about Pokémon, and is thus, recognisable, per the policy. 11WB (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Pokémon, WikiProject Board and table games, and WikiProject Video games have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Opposte - if I saw a link to an article just called "Base Set", I have absolutely no idea what I think it would be, but Pokémon cards is definitely not it. ScalarFactor (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• I would like to know what people here think should happen to the redirect Base Set if this article isn't renamed. Currently, it does not seem useful. I would even prefer deleting it over keeping it aimed at a disambiguation page that doesn't include any type of "base set". Surely we don't want "Base Set" to redirect to "Base Set (Pokémon)"? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  That is probably better left for an WP:RfD. 11WB (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Either bring it back to its former status as a DAB page, or move this page to Pokémon Trading Card Game Base Set so it doesn't require "Base Set" alone to have an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'd pretty strongly opposed the longer name, as I think that would run afoul of common name guidelines Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose move per the above arguments. "Base Set", even as a proper noun, doesn't bring Pokémon to mind. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly highly ambiguous. Maybe create a Basic Set dabpage (easily the commonest term) and redirect Base Set to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't really see any indication that the Pokémon card pack was ever called a "basic set". It's a bit made up on the spot to combine these two terms into a single disambiguation page. We might risk creating a new piece of terminology wholesale. A base does not need to be basic. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not saying we should rename the Pokémon set. Just that a dabpage would be a good idea and it would be a good idea to add this under a "See also" header, which we usually do with similar sounding names (because it helps users, who may not know the difference). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  "Basic Set" is a similar-sound term, so it's fine to link the two in some form. The only articles that need that disambiguation specifically would be Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set and GURPS Basic Set, though. It's almost comical how these terms that feel like they must have some relevance in mathematics seem to only be used in pop culture media, and don't have any defined meaning outside of that. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's not really comical at all. It's an entirely sensible and apt term. Many of us would not even think of mathematics when we heard it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom, there's no other article on Wikipedia with the name. If someone decides to fill out and make a page then I'd probably slash my vote.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Base set is a general concept and I'm sure most games have one. Gonnym (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per 162—blindlynx 12:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.