Talk:Génération.s

Challenge Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's clausure
I is not serious. The contributor have launched the first speedy deletion, but for that case the AfD is more suitable. So, I have replaced the template by a better. I haven't made a point. I challenge Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's clausure. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2017

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move this article, or where to move it to. Tie goes to the status quo. (closed by page mover) Brad  v  02:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Génération.s, le mouvement → Générations Mouvement – Per WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:TM, and their own website (WP:ABOUTSELF); it will also satisfy WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE, while also keeping with the spirit of WP:CONCISE (adding extraneous characters to be cute does not). It's basically immaterial that various and rather random "we're not sure what to do" symbol-laden renderings have appeared (apparently in response to marketing the party no longer even uses), including "Génération&middot;s Mouvement", "Génération&bull;s Mouvement", and "Génération(s) Mouvement" (with "le" versions being rare) is immaterial. We do not apply unusual stylization unless it is used in the majority of reliable, independent sources (with preference given to English-language ones). And this version with "." is virtually unattested. I moved this stuff around yesterday in an attempt to get all the mangled names (there were some earlier move errors) and their redirects pointing to a single, non-confusing place. After this new unduscussed move, I'm not sure what the status of things is. Anyway, this is basically the same case as Macy's versus "macy★s", except Macy's actually asserts that stylization as their official logo, and Générations Mouvement seems to do no such thing with any of these strange renderings. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This seems, in the absence of a touchstone source, to be more about individual preferences than any policy- or sourced-based requirement, let all the BS unWP:TSC symbology, which, per nom, doesn't even confirm to what they seemingly identify too. It's a frankly bizarre situation: I'm all for, as it were, being all things to all people, but wearing so many hats that no-one knows which is your own  is a curious business model.    SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 08:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose moving to Générations Mouvement: the difference here is how it's rendered in French media, which does not regularly use the style with a dot, but does use the style regularly with the full stop or a hyphen, but does not also regularly omit the separation. Here's a quick summary of what various French media use:

The stylistic appellation is clearly preserved by news sources (though the middot is not and fairly ridiculous) and therefore the COMMONNAME, and if anything, I'd support moving the page simply to drop "le mouvement" while retaining the current title of "Génération.s" – there shouldn't be any confusion about that. The period, unlike the middot, shouldn't pose any technical issues, as it's a normal keyboard key and can be easily reproduced. For simplicity, I'd support moving to Génération.s. Mélencron (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:TM: We do not apply an unusual stylization unless it is found in a strong majority of the reliable sources. There's nothing consistent about all the weird styling above. COMMONNAME has nothing to do with this, other than the "le" part, which I notice you avoid addressing. COMMONNAME is not a style policy and has nothing to do with the ., &middot;, &bull;, -,, etc., matter at all. That's a MOS:TM matter.   Even if we were to merge MOS:TM and WP:COMMONNAME, the result still would not apply because none of those press appellations are the same, but are all randomly different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose per sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that the sources are not particularly clear-cut.  ->SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 14:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Le Figaro/Le Monde are the the two best-known/high-circulation French newspapers, and the channels of France Télévisions and BFM TV (as a news station) are among the most-watched in France, and RTL/franceinfo the most-listened-to radio stations. I think there's some weight to be put into that. Mélencron (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Revert back to 1 July Movement until there are at least a few cited sources and evidence of how the new name it is treated in English sources. It's really quite unclear, and if their stylization has a centered dot in it, our  immitating that with a period seems wrong on  multiple fronts. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move to Générations, le mouvement – We don't include stylization in article titles. It can remain in the text. — JFG talk 10:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * in this case, Générations, le mouvement, not Générations Mouvement. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, amending my support accordingly. — JFG talk 18:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:COMMONNAME says, as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. I'm actually unable to find much english language sources though, which makes determining the title difficult.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.