Talk:Another Brick in the Wall: The Opera

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this draft duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/another-brick-in-the-wall---the-opera---world-premiere-in-collaboration-with-the-society-for-the-celebration-of-montreals-375th-anniversary---2-added-dates-announced-603382186.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2017
Another Brick in the Wall: The Opera → Another Brick in the Wall—The Opera – There should be an em dash in the title, not a colon. This can be observed on the Opera de Montreal original production website, the Cincinnati Opera production website, and in the body of numerous news articles like this Entertainment Weekly one and this Playbill one. Asdielman (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Very weak oppose: 1) the poster art shown in the article doesn't use any punctuation mark at all, so the punctuation doesn't seem to be very sacred, 2) sometimes the punctuation is used rather inconsistently or the self-published dash is extremely long for artistic effect or has spaces around it, 3) we ordinarily apply our own styling guidelines to titles of creative works (e.g., MOS:CT/MOS:TM/WP:TITLETM) rather than using whatever decorative punctuation we find in self-published sources produced by those who produced a topic, 4) several of the cited sources do use the colon (even within their headlines), 4) my impression is that it is more common and understandable and ordinary in English to use a colon to set off such a subtitle/disambiguator/clarifier. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. There is no particularly prevailing style for this, and sources using colon include Rolling Stone, Radio.com, BBC The Globe and Mail and NY Times. I also agree with BarrelProof's other points. No such user (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)