Talk:To Have & to Hold (Philippine TV series)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Lennart97 in topic Requested move 26 October 2021
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the To Have & to Hold (Philippine TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 26 October 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to To Have and to Hold (Philippine TV series). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Requested move 26 October 2021
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: not moved. Clear consensus against this poorly motivated move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
To Have & to Hold (Philippine TV series) → To Have and to Hold (Philippine TV series) – Per MOS:TITLE. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- You are just giving a Wikipedia link, but not exactly explaining why it should be moved. You should look at the title card of the show and how its written as "&" and not "and". Therefore it shouldn't be moved.TheHotwiki (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Hotwiki: Then you should have voted not move so it will be counted. Yeah I know that the title card written is "&" not "and", but I read the MOS:TITLE before doing this. I did not add the explanation why because the Wikipedia link I mentioned is already there (the explanation). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again what is your explanation? I visited the page and I couldn't see a statement that "&" can't be used in the article title. Why leave it is as it is, especially "&" is more reflective to the show's title card. This doesn't seem like a necessary move at all. Also I don't need to vote "not move" for my opinion to be "counted", as I am clearly against the page move.TheHotwiki (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not move, @SeanJ 2007: please properly state or explain your reasoning, the next time you move an article or petition an article move. There's plenty of articles in Wikipedia that uses "&" in the article title. TheHotwiki (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again what is your explanation? I visited the page and I couldn't see a statement that "&" can't be used in the article title. Why leave it is as it is, especially "&" is more reflective to the show's title card. This doesn't seem like a necessary move at all. Also I don't need to vote "not move" for my opinion to be "counted", as I am clearly against the page move.TheHotwiki (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Hotwiki: Then you should have voted not move so it will be counted. Yeah I know that the title card written is "&" not "and", but I read the MOS:TITLE before doing this. I did not add the explanation why because the Wikipedia link I mentioned is already there (the explanation). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose: The relevant Wikipedia guideline appears to be MOS:&, which says to "retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, such as in Up & Down or AT&T". This seems directly analogous to Up & Down. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- You are just giving a Wikipedia link, but not exactly explaining why it should be moved. You should look at the title card of the show and how its written as "&" and not "and". Therefore it shouldn't be moved.TheHotwiki (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per MOS:AMP. Although I would be open to an explanation from @SeanJ 2007: as to what relevant part of MOS:TITLE better addresses this request. TiggerJay (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Hotwiki. Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2021 (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.