Talk:Moo-Moo Milk (Neo Genesis 101)

Move to Moomoo Milk (HeartGold & SoulSilver 94)

So, Bulbapedia usually names subjects after their most recent name that isn't considered to be a mistake... and this card mocks that by kind of sort of being two cards and kind of sort of being one card. In any case, it's a corner case that needs special treatment. Either this can be split into two articles as per the English rule, moved to the most recent name, or we can make a special TCG policy to not rename articles when this happens. I'm fairly opposed to the last bit, because Solar Beam currently isn't "SolarBeam", but either of the first two works. I guess I'd rather the move over the split since calling Moomoo Milk the updated version of Moo-Moo Milk sounds bizarre. Salmancer (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We dont move a page to a more recent release if the name changes EXP.ALL (Neo Destiny 93) is a case for that, if anything it would be a split because of differening english names and ruleing that they are not the same card, so I changed the notice template if we want to discuss this split. Personally I feel it most intuitive if we had trainer cards which are fundamentally different on seperate pages, so people dont confuse them as the same card when they are clearly not. Master Ball (Gym Challenge 116) is an extreme example of this where the card classification even changes between releases but if anything this would have to me a discussion that takes place at a meta level such as the Bulbapedia Talk:Project TCG page, and does not represent current policy. 4iamking 22:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As it happens, I choose my words with utmost care. If I said I think the page should be moved, I meant I think the page should be moved. I don't appreciate having my intent changed in this manner. If you're going to overrule something with staff power, just say you are overruling something. Salmancer (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)