This is the talk page for discussing the page, Historic Forbidden/Limited Chart.

Please try to

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • Be welcoming

I caught 2 errors. Torrential Tribute is Limited in the current (September 2006) list (it was shown as Forbidden), and Confiscation was Forbidden in the April 2005 list (it was listed as Limited). I remember this because Confiscation was banned when they brought back Delinquent Duo. --Yami Aguilar 05:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell TwoTailedFox to fix it. AnnaV 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new here. I already made the change, I didn't know about the "summary" option so I was writing all my changes in "discussion."--Yami Aguilar 16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 has be updated.

  • Chaos cards weren't available in 2003 since the boosters were released in 2004, thus the first case of both envoy should be Black, not green!

--KevinSephiroth 13:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • unlimited cards should be noted as bgcolor="#00FF00" not #00FF33 like in the legend at the beginning of the article. This results in differents green in the aticle.. Why did you reverted my work without verifying that ??? --KevinSephiroth 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, your editions are back. Thanks for your help. --Dragon Slayer 04:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Other Lists

Why aren't May '02 and May '08 on this chart?

They have articles too, so it shouldn't be too difficult to add them.-- 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it because we don't have the OCG lists?

If so, it's a poor reason. We have the TCG lists, and we should include all of the information that we have in this chart, shouldn't we?

I'd fix it myself, but this is my first Wikia post, so I don't know how.

Can we tell TwoTailedFox or Deltaneos to add these?-- 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'll tell Two Tailed Fox to do something about this. -- 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason why there isn't a May 2002 because there wasn't a ban list only limited and semi-limited list and as for the May 2008 because there three addition to the ban list for May which is Dimension Fusion (Forbidden) and Return from the different Dimension (Limited). -- 04:43, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to side with the two random IP people. We should use the May lists. --GoldenSandslash15 21:01, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Most Recent limited/forbidden List

Where can you find the most recent version of this list? Jupitus 20:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009 Lists. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


How accurate is this Forbidden/Limited chart?


Just a scratchpad for working on a per-card template for this page; you can ignore this (though if anyone knows of sources for the old OCG banlists, please post them either here or on my talk page... I'm also interested in knowing if there's only ever been one banlist each for the OCG and TCG, or if there were more (e.g. Europe probably had its own banlist prior to Invasion of Chaos[1])).

Template input
{{Template name|Card name|May 2002 OCG=Unlimited|May 2002 TCG=Did not exist|Sept 2004 OCG=Forbidden|Sept 2004 TCG=Limited|Apr 2005=Forbidden|Sept 2005=Illegal|Mar 2008 OCG=Semi-limited|Mar 2008 TCG=Limited}}
  • I'm not seeing any way currently to cleanly allow the template input to only specify when a card's status changes, meaning currently it looks like the status will have to be specified for *every* banlist. If there is a way, though, I'm seriously thinking about rowspans for unchanged values where appropriate.
  • I'm not sure yet how best to allow notes and the like to be added for a given banlist. Straight in the associated parameter (meaning lots of StringFunctions)? Separate parameter for each banlist (meaning twice the parameters)? Hmm... probably dedicated note parameters with some means of specifying which banlist a given note corresponds to.
Template output
Historic Forbidden/Limited lists
Card Name 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
May Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Mar Sept Mar Sept Mar Sept Mar Sept Mar Sept
Card 1 1OCG 1 4OCG 4 5 2OCG

Any discussion or comments should happen below here, not below my above comment. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:28, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

I kinda like each box separate instead of 1 huge block with the colspans. Makes counting how long it was limited for easier, among a few other things imo. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 07:36, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, you're right. I wasn't thinking of just how long the table is, meaning that for rowspans to really work, we'd either have to repeat the header every so many rows, or the template would have to have some way of specifying what banlist(s) a given cell covers (this is really something that needs to be done anyways; it's simple enough to follow a column down/up from a header, but it gets to be a pain after a while) - perhaps more tooltip abuse would do the trick? ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:02, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Are floating headers possible on wikia? -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 14:19, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
You mean like have the header rows "detach" from the table and stay at the top of the page or something as it's scrolled down? Yes, since that's a matter of JavaScript, though I don't know how to program anything like it myself (and I also can't say how much the table's source would have to be finagled to get it to work as well). ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 17:02, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
The most simple way is to use a div, as it doesn't require any fancy addons. But the only way to get it to follow only while inside the table (as a floating header) is to use Javascript. Also, div doesn't work very well when there's 2 skins with different widths.
Click for floating header
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 00:42, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
I think we would want it to be fixed to the table until the viewport is scrolled past the top, then it would detach from the table and float at the top of the screen. Google does pretty much exactly that in Gmail (at least, on the skin I use). ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:10, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
and that would require Javascript. Was just checking to see if we can force it to do that without Javascript using div.
So we'll just use repeated headers until someone figures out how to use Javascript to do that.
This wikia seems to have it (although it lags a bit) but only to list categories.
-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:59, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we're both overthinking the floating header thing - all we need for it is some sort of "floating" class (not necessarily the actual name) in MediaWiki:Common.css with the necessary CSS to float the header at the top of the screen (or wherever), and a bit of JS that finds tables with a certain class name ("floatable", perhaps, to match with "sortable") and then changes that class to "floating" when the header scrolls above the viewport (we may need JS to stop the header from sticking to the viewport once the whole table is scrolled past, though it may be possible to stop this just with CSS, given proper usage of position values on various parts of the table).
JS to change the class (ignoring the condition) is just $('table.floatable').toggleClass('floating') and this looks like it could be modified to detect when the header is scrolled out of view. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 04:24, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Baby Dragon Rulers

The baby dragons were unlimited in the March 2013 format, and they were legal that format. Should they be put as unlimited in that format instead of "did not exist"? (sorry, I messed up the template before when I tried to update it). Ninety-eight (talkcontribs) 14:12, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Unlimited. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 14:17, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

TCG/OCG Split is Confusing

I think we should separate the chart into two articles, for TCG and for OCG. The current format is pretty confusing since it no longer progresses linearly. Having two different charts and/or article pages would provide much more clarity. {{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/Ch3wy}} 02:04, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

User:Blueapple128 said something similar recently. I have thought on this a little and suspect that multiple pages would cause problems due to there being the multiple pages specifically. What if, instead, two different charts were made up and hidden in drop-downs? To select the TCG or OCG charts, the viewer could easily just click the drop-down arrow to show that specific chart. We could even improve the differences by showing the specific changes between TCG and OCG below the chart. Sort of a "Current differences" Section specifying the cards that are different values between the two? --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 19:12, July 17, 2014 (UTC)
I think what we need is two charts, but in separate tabs so readers can easily compare the two. One chart is just too confusing and is not going to work. --SnorlaxMonster 13:14, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

Exclusive Split

I was kind of thinking that if I were to do it, I would maybe keep the OCG/TCG section the same up to March 2013, since those Lists and the Lists before them were somewhat identical to each other, and then make two separate sections for the OCG/TCG-exclusive Lists. The problem is, the former is the section I may have the most trouble with, for two reasons:

  1. I don't know if 2003 was the earliest the Lists go.
  2. Even if I did know when the earliest Lists began, I wouldn't know if it would be exclusive for the OCG or the TCG.

So I was thinking for the OCG/TCG-similar section, I would make the Lists as early as I am most comfortable with? --Yes, it's PSYCHID! He talks! He does stuff! 02:48, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

The earliest TCG lists corresponded to the releases of core TCG booster packs and only concerned themselves with the TCG card pool; this isn't shown very well on this page but is quite evident if you look at the navbox and the list articles themselves. As far as I've been able to find, the OCG lists go back to 1999 at the latest, but I haven't found any good sources for these pre-TCG lists (or, indeed, basically any OCG lists up to about 2004 or so). My plan was always to get the individual list articles squared away with proper sources first, and then tackle redesigning this page. I still think there is merit in a single unified table design, though, and have put some thought in to how such a table would/should work over the years. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 07:10, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

I have a different proposal. Until 2013 the chart looks really well, but it's after that that it looks a bit confusing and may need a different distribution. So I propose to make two articles for the Historic chart, this one until September 2013, when the split in TCG and OCG took place (and showing it as it is already in this article), and another one continuing from September 2013 with both TCG and OCG lists split. That way we will have a early part of the history with the first 10 years of lists of the game (from Sept. 2003 to Sept. 2013) and another with the following years of history. Also this way the cells will not look more and more tighter over the years and since there are cards that aren't or haven't been on the list for 10 years the list will have less cards and not be so long and the article will lag less.

By the way, September 2003 was the first TCG and OCG unified list, there were lists before but only for each place and mostly based on the release of sets in each.--Feder373 (talkcontribs) 20:43, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we want to document all the lists, not just starting with the unification of the OCG and TCG lists, so any proposal for a changed format has to account for that. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:41, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
In that case, we should make three different articles, because there are quite lists for the OCG and TCG before the unification. I suggest making one article for the 1999-2003 period, another for the 2003-2013 period (the period of the unified lists), and another for the 2013-onwards period. I think that would be the best way to do it, because any way not based on a time split will just make the chart look more complicated, overloaded, and uncomfortable to read over the years. A TCG/OCG split won't solve this. (Sorry for the really late answer, I forgot about this).--Feder373 (talkcontribs) 11:52, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

Split OCG and TCG charts and create 2 charts 1 for OCG and 1 for TCG

Well the current chart is really confusing. Is it a good idea to seperate the TCG and OCG charts and make 2 pages, one for the OCG and one for the TCG?

Thunder Eagle 09:56, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

See the previous discussions. This has been a known problem for years, but nothing's been done because no one has proposed a concrete alternative, and converting the current table will be a massive amount of work. If you have suggestions, though, I'm all ears. =) ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 10:04, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

We need to update this with Ancient Fairy Dragon, Denglong, First of the Yang Zing, etc.

--Metalreflectslime (talkcontribs) 01:55, January 23, 2018 (UTC)

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+