Talk:Tucks (bouncing)

Of Tucks and Pengar

Honestly, I think the previous "Pengā" version of the article is much better and more accurate than the current "Tucks (bouncing)" version. "That name won't cut it; regular Tucks share the same Japanese name, so it's just going to be confusing." is the reason given for the move. I disagree for several reasons. Right off the bat, the article is now completely off base with the {{another language}} statement at the top of the article - "The title of this article is official, but it comes from a non-English source." Changing this to {{conjecture}} wouldn't work either for similar reasons. As stated in Naming, Japanese romanizations are to be used and have been used in general with the main exception being English loanwords. Regarding the shared Japanese name: so? Shared names in one language don't necessarily mean shared names in another. It would be one thing if this was considered the same subject, but it's not. Finally, I personally find the use of identifier in a title contradicting the stated goal of {{another language}} more confusing. At the very least, a proposal-less, policy-breaking move should've had a unanimous discussion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:45, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

Given that Shogakukan, the sole licensed piece of media to acknowledge the bouncing variety, does not distinguish it from regular Tucks, I'm in favour of a merge with the base enemy. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:57, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

I'm fine with a merge, too. ^(T|C) 14:24, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

Ditto. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:51, May 15, 2021 (EDT)