Jump to content

Talk:Puff-puff (onomatopoeia)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 24 August 2024

[edit]
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: moved. Consensus to move to Puff-puff (onomatopoeia) (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puff-puff (Akira Toriyama) → Puff-puff (Dragon Quest) – The term and associated scenes is by far the most widely known from Dragon Quest, making its original name more appropriate. The origins of its parodies in other series almost certainly stem from Dragon Quest's wide popularity in Japan as well. While Toriyama may have used it in Dragon Ball beforehand, it's just confusing to not associate it with Dragon Quest when there is no evidence it's all over his other works and the fact that it was even used in Dragon Ball first feels like more of a geeky trivia note than relevant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest Puff-puff (onomatopoeia), Puff-puff (activity), Puff-puff (sex act) or something similar instead. While the article is currently Dragon Quest focused, there was a version of it deleted a couple of years ago that was neutral and treated it as a general sex act, such as Mammary intercourse. A Jap Wiki disambiguation page at ja:パフパフ, an alternate spelling of the term, suggests it is a "common name" for a sex act and is commonly used in porn video titles. Also, the origin of anything is never "trivia". Xfansd (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that onomatopoeia would be the best approach, as I think that the focus of the article is not on a real-world sex act or activity, so onomatopoeia would feel more appropriate. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also not oppose such a move to onomatopoeia if people agreed with it. I think that is better than the current. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that being the case, to avoid ongoing discussions during a GAN, I suggest that the discussion be closed in favor of onomatopoeia, since that appears to be the consensus choice. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the article has been moved multiple times already, I'd prefer to let it run its course to ensure the name is stable. At best it will be closed in less than a week. Unless there is further disagreement in which case it would have been right to keep it open. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... okay. I don't see the benefit of making sure a full consensus doesn't wind up overturned. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support (onomatopoeia) with (Dragon Quest) as my second choice. I oppose anything that emphasizes real-world versions, like (activity) would. Neutral on the current title for now. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support onomatopoeia. Seems to be the most encompassing title. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Puff-puff (onomatopoeia)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 22:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Will hit this up soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six GA Criteria

[edit]

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses two fair use images with proper rationale.

Lead

[edit]

-Looks good

History

[edit]

-"some characters are able to use it as a special technique" Like in-battle ability, or something else? I feel some clarity would help here.

Clarified

Impact

[edit]

-"The YouTuber Momo Momose, being a fan of the Dragon Quest series, celebrated its 35th anniversary, reproduced a "puff-puff" scene from Dragon Quest while wearing a red bunny suit, including a fade to black." I don't see why this is relevant to the subject, as this Youtuber doesn't seem particularly important, nor does it seem relevant for showing subject impact.

-"Digitally Downloaded writer Matt Sainsbury questioned whether puff-puff being featured in English Dragon Quest games was worth criticism of the scenes that he felt would be inevitable" I'm a bit confused what this is supposed to mean. Could you clarify this?'

Opted to remove both

-I'm a bit concerned by how many sources are being plucked from reviews of Dragon Quest games. I won't fail it on these grounds for the time being, but I would appreciate some form of clarification as to what sources here you feel best display independent notability of the subject so as to verify this subject's notability in case it is to be called into question in the future.

[1] [2] [3] [4]
That said, it's already survived a merge attempt, so I don't expect issues. @Pokelego999: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

[edit]

-@Cukie Gherkin: Article isn't in terrible shape, but there's a few things above that I feel need to be addressed. Did a few touch-ups myself for grammar and sentence flow, so that should be good for now. Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification on anything. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin there shouldn't be any further issues regarding the above for now.
Spotcheck: 25, 5, 2, 11, 12, 9, 7. 2 does not explicitly state that the Puff-Puff is delivered through dialogue, though the mention of it being a euphemism is covered by Cite 1. All other citations are accurate. Please clarify or reword 2 and we should be good to go. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Handled - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin Should be good to go. Happy to pass. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Cukie Gherkin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puff-puff_(onomatopoeia)&oldid=1255105621"