Talk:I Heart Huckabees/Archive 1

Jaffe and Jaffe
The website for Jaffe and Jaffe isn't available. Does anyone know of a cached version?
 * several here. --Nelson Ricardo 04:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of bbc
I think I♥... (BBC television & compilation album brand) is relevant as people might link the two titles together and then not want to surf through the whole of the wikipages to get to it. have to make handling the links easy.


 * Apologies for not spotting this before my last revert, I should have checked. Anyway, I think the link you're adding is irrelevant to this page.  Its only connection is the heart symbol, which stems (as I understand it) from I ♥ NY, so the latter can just about merit an entry here.  I can't see how anyone would link Huckabees with the BBC series just because they have the same typographical symbol in their titles.  Essentially, it's an irrelevant advert for a page you created that, I notice, doesn't even link back to Huckabees (or I ♥ NY for that matter).  I'm very wary of link bloat.  Cheers, --Plumbago 12:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Screwball comedy?
Erm, is it? I'd have stuck to the advertisers line that it's an existential comedy. While it shares some facets usually confined to screwball comedy films, it's clearly trying something different. And I'd have thought it might not appeal to all viewers of traditional screwball comedy films. Comments? --Plumbago 11:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Move
I tried to move the page to I ♥ Huckabees (because this is actually the title of the film) but apparently the symbols don't work so well as titles and so I and the Article were screwed. Anyway, I put the ♥ in the article as needed, and now it's back at home where it belongs. --TheGrza 20:54, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * > I ♥ Huckabees (pronounced I Heart Huckabees)
 * Who says there is a 'correct' way to pronoune it?
 * There is no standard way of pronouncing that symbol.
 * How do you pronounce !#?
 * The title is I ♥ Huckabees, pronounciation should
 * be left to the reader.


 * Because the movie trailer pronounces it that way. What's the controversy? Dforest 07:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A few points:
 * 1. Just because the movie trailer pronounces it a certain way does not mean it is correct.
 * If I spell my name Bill but tell everyone it is pronounced "John" am I right?


 * 2. According to IMDB, I Love Huckabees *is* an official alternative title:
 * IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721) says:
 * Also Known As:
 * I Love Huckabee's (USA) (working title)
 * I Love Huckabees (USA) (alternative title)


 * 3. > What's the controversy:
 * Have a look around the web, there is plenty of debate, also see:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_heart
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_New_York


 * 1. Yes, actually. If your parents gave you the name Bill and said it was to be pronounced "John", it should be, considering that they are the creators of such name and genuinely refer to it as such. Similarly to how the writer and directer of this film refers to his film's title as "I Heart Huckabees". You would have to correct people often when they call you "Bill" instead of "John" but, if you have a problem with that, I guess your parents should have picked a less confusing name for you.


 * 2. IMDB's word is hardly official. It states that an alternative title for NBC's The Office is The Office: An American Workplace. But the latter title was only used in very early promos for the series. I mean, it states that an official working title is I Love Huckabee's? With an apostraphe? IMDB has always been full of questionable information and unreferenced facts.


 * 3. Well, there may be all sorts of controversy for whether "I ♥ New York" is to be pronounced "I heart New York" or "I love New York" (I actually think it's "love" in that case, which is why so much confusion would inevitably rise over the title of the film). But Russell pronounces his flick "I Heart Huckabees", the trailer pronounces the flick "I Heart Huckabees". The closest sources to the film pronounce it "I Heart Huckabees". I think it's safe to say that that's how it should be pronounced.


 * But who really needs to make a huge fuss over such thing? The symbol of the heart in the title is more important than the pronunciation itself. If we could all speak in symbols, the movie would be pronounced "I ♥ Huckabees". But, we can't, apparently. So, forget the title and watch the movie. Pele Merengue 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (30 October 2006)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus. --  tariq abjotu  02:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I ♥ Huckabees → I Heart Huckabees — MoS:TM calls for avoiding characters such as ♥. Some users may have difficulty displaying it in their browsers. Croctotheface 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.
 * Oppose. "I ♥ Huckabees" is the correct title as is apparent by the film cover. We should use correct titles unless it is actually not possible to do so. For example, "#9 Dream" is at Number 9 Dream, but this is not a similar situation. — CharlotteWebb 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per CharlotteWebb.-- Hús  ö  nd  00:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Not only is this likely to cause technical problems, it is also incredibly obnoxious. Recury 17:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per MoS:TM. Clackmannanshireman 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - correctness is far less important than it's given credit for. I Heart Huckabees is perfectly clear, understandable and best of all, typeable. Let's not be obnoxious. Stevage 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, with comment - The title is "I ♥ Huckabees", with a heart, and if we can display it we should; but maybe a note, like the one on IPod, could go at the top of the page saying "The title of this movie is 'I ♥ Huckabees', with a heart symbol; it is also referred to as 'I Heart Huckabees'." Max22 20:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, in case it wasn't clear from my nomination. We make changes to "official" or owner-supported names all the time for the benefit of readibility. It is not analagous to "iPod" for a variety of reasons. See MoS:TM. Croctotheface 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see how it is obnoxious, its accurate. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per MoS:TM. Also, though not directly related to this, Naming_conventions states that Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band)). I think we shouldn't replicate stylized typography in films either. Prolog 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
MoS:TM may not strictly apply here, since it's intended as the guideline for corporations and their registered trademarks. Films can be thought of as artistic works as well as corporate products, and there's a seperate page in the Manual of Style on [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)
 * naming conventions]] for them. That guide doesn't say much about unusual characters in titles, but by way of precident, we also use Se7en and not Seven for the 1995 David Fincher film, and Clerks. with a "." rather than just Clerks for the Kevin Smith film. As far as the heart character goes, I believe it's more common to be able to display the heart than it is most Asaitic character sets, but we still use these where appropriate. One way or another, the movie's official title has the heart, and major publications seem to have humored them on this a fair amount of the time. As long as there's a redirect at I Heart Huckabees, it seems like using the heart would be following convention. -- Bailey(talk) 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to say first of all that I do not intend to fight this to the death. However, Naming conventions (films) does not seem to address this topic at all.  I could understand granting a bit more leeway to film titles than corporate brand names, but I'm inclined to believe that the articles you cite use nonstandard styles because they are were written and are maintained by fans who want to grant their favorite movie and TV shows special treatment.  If someone judiciously applied the Manual of Style, I could envision those articles being moved. There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) wherein several editors mentioned that the prohibition on characters such as ♥ should apply to articles such as this one.  I'm inclined to agree, so I posted the RM. Croctotheface 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, I'm not a fan of using nonstandard names either, especially in cases where an unusual spelling could just as well be considered a typographical idiosynchrocy or a "graphic logo" for the film as a product -- but the precident seems to be genuine -- the examples I gave (as well as others) were the subject of multiple polls and discussion at Wikiproject Films. Adaptation. is another one, using the period as part the full name, which I think is rather silly, but on the flip side, most people reluctantly acknowledge the name eXistenZ for that annoyingly-titled film. In any case, I don't have a strong preference, although I do think the Manual of Style for films should have a concrete rule for the sake of consistancy. I just don't know exactly what the deciding factor should be in these cases, which is why I've abstained from voting here. -- Bailey(talk) 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a simple rule: Page titles have to be typeable on a US keyboard. iPod, eXistenZ and Adaptation. all pass. The heart symbol doesn't. We may however want to rule out a couple more symbols like backquote (`) and pipe (|) which will probably cause more trouble than they're worth. Stevage 23:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the computer I'm using now displays the title as "I ♥ Huckabees". Recury 02:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it copied the character OK, but it was displayed on that computer as a thick vertical bar. I guess I didn't help my case much with that one, lol... Recury 17:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect title.
The title may not be I Heart Huckabees, but special characters should certainly not be used in Wikipedia titles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There is an argument to be made for that. But there are certainly others—Toys "Я" Us, a case in point. Regardless, we should not use the technical limitations disclaimer, because it is not a technical limitation. The MediaWiki software is demonstrably capable of using the correct title. Dforest 03:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, note the film's official website uses the &hearts; on the main page title. Dforest 03:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is the technical limitation of some users' browsers, as special characters may not appear correctly on some browsers. We are capable of putting it in the title, but not capable of making that title readable for all. That's the point of the template, that this totally applicable symbol will not work for everyone. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The same could be said for the æ ligature in Encyclopædia Britannica. ♥ is a standard Unicode character. Dforest 06:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A standard unicode that happens to not appear correctly on some browsers. It can be said for us, because it's a policy to not use special characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer is meant to be used for titles that are not technically possible in MediaWiki software. This is not a Wikipedia technical limitation.  Also, the ♥ is in the WGL4 character set, and should be supported on all major platforms.  I don't believe there is any policy prohibiting this character. --Dforest 01:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Technical limitation or not, it can't be viewed on some browsers, e.g. Firefox. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm using Firefox and I have no problem viewing it. -- N  scheffey   (T/C) 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's truely a problem with Firefox font you use, and/or the OS theme font used.--86.218.27.54 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - Somebody who lives in the general vicinity of the Library of Congress (and who cares enough) could check how the film title was written on the copyright registration form by the film's producers (or their lawyers).


 * Actually, this just makes it even more confusing:

1. Registration Number: 	 	 PA-1-239-676 Title: 	 	I [love] Huckabees / a aKanzeon, Scott Rudin, N1 European Film Produktions production ; directed by David O. Russell. Description: 	 	6 film reels ; 35 mm. Note: 	 	Word "love" represented by a heart. Claimant: 	 	Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation Created: 	 	2004 Published: 	 	24Sep04 Registered: 	 	30Sep04 Title on © Application: 	 	I heart Huckabees; Existential detectives. Author on © Application: 	 	acN1 European Film Produktions, GmbH & Co., KG, employer for hire. Previous Related Version: 	 	Screenplay prev. reg. 2003, PAu 2-809-139 & 2-788-591; music preexisting. Claim Limit: 	 	NEW MATTER: all other cinematographic materal. Special Codes:	 	4/X/L


 * I stick by my previous explanation though. I believe we are an encyclopedia in the business of presenting articles written in the English language. The heart symbol is not part of the English language. No newspaper or legitimate print encyclopedia (e.g.) would use the heart symbol in their body copy even though it's possible. – flamurai (t) 05:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How about the New York Times, the Daily News, the Washington Post, the (London) Times Online and NBC?  Wiki is not paper. Dforest 09:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the article back. There is a difference between a name, which is a representation of something in standard language, and a logo, which is a stylized representation of a name. Not to mention there is no standard pronunciation for the heart symbol, which means screen readers may not read it correctly or at all. – flamurai (t) 05:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be preferable if you got consensus before moving the page around. It is not merely a logo, the actual title is a rebus. It is noted on the LOC registration, the trailer, the poster, the DVD, and to my knowledge all the promotional materials for the film.  See above for how other media outlets treat it. Dforest 09:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The director mentions on the commentary that he likes the title because "It has a heart in it", and he likes doing things in unique ways that make people think like that. The website used to have a video introduction with Jason Schwartzman, but I don't remember if he said the title of the film. I haven't watched the whole commentary, but I will, and I'll report back on if Russell definitively says "Heart" or "Love". Max22 21:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

New policies on WP:NC mean the heart symbol is against WP:UE.-- Sa mue l C urt is -- TALK  10:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See my comment under subject heading titled "Name", below. It's the same issue. Joie de Vivre 16:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (14 January 2007)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

, at this time, no consensus. Patstuarttalk 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I ♥ Huckabees → I Heart Huckabees — While I understand this move was brought up only a few months ago, I don't feel the right reasons were mentioned. The "♥" in the poster is simply a different way of writing "Heart". It is much like how P!nk' is a different way of writing Pink. Sure enough, P!nk redirects to Pink (singer). The ♥ is not part of the official name. The film's official site clearly refers to the film as "I Heart Huckabees" (see the title bar) and imdb's and rotten tomatoes' entries refer to the film as "I Heart Huckabees" as well. Therefore, all evidence indicates that the "♥" in the title should be omitted from the article name. Please note this is much like titles written in ALL CAPS or all lowercase - Wikipedia ignores them. (For example, the poster actually says "i ♥ huckabees", but clearly we have decided to change it to "I" and "Huckabees".) Thus, in keeping with Wikipedia policy, but more importantly the ACTUAL title of the movie, ♥ should be changed to "Heart". Bssc81 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .

Survey - Support votes

 * 1) Support as nom. - Bssc81 06:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: in addition to the reasons given by the nom, the principle of least surprise in article naming says that we should try to ensure that a reader who types a title into the "search" box reaches the proper destination, if possible without a redirect.  I hazard that more readers looking for this film will type "I Heart Huckabees" than will figure out how to type the ♥ character so they can type "I ♥ Huckabees". Which, after all, is part of the reasoning behind Naming conventions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Yath 12:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Special character naming convention and also the nominator's point about the film's official name. 205.157.110.11 14:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Plus, off-hand, who can even type a heart character? --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I'm all for maintaining the standard rules (and alphabet) of the English language here. – flamurai (t) 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per naming conventions. Jonathunder 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, no need to try to replicate logotypes in our article titles. Also, the current title does not display properly in all browsers. Recury 19:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per MoS:TM. "Official name" rationales have consistently been rejected as reasons to violate the Manual of Style.  In this case, there is a legitimate claim that the producers of the film do not regard the heart symbol as better or "official" anyway.  Croctotheface 19:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per nom. and the precentant set at We Love Katamari, which got moved (by a 10-2 vote) for the same reason. TJ Spyke 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Frankly, what imdb.com calls it carries a lot more weight than what the site's official website calls it. We go with the most common, normal, widely used name, and that's clearly "Heart", not "(stupid heart symbol)". And putting a weird symbol in the actual article title is obnoxious. Highly so. Stevage 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support although some persuasive authority suggests that "I ♥ Huckabees" is more correct (see my comments below). The fully English title makes linking easier, which is one of the main ideas of WP:UE. However, the opening sentence should still show this title, much like We Love Katamari does. Support something like Bssc81's proposed "I ♥ Huckabees, pronounced I Heart Huckabees, is a..." Cool Hand Luke 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

 * 1) Strongly Oppose. There is nothing on the movie's official site that refers to the movie, in print, as "I Heart Huckabees".  While they sometimes pronounce the title that way, in every instance in print, the name of the film is written "I ♥ Huckabees".  See the Production Notes on the official site; they use the heart symbol when referring to the film.  The listings of websites unrelated to the producers of the film (those of imdb and rottentomatoes) does not change the actual name of the film. The way that other websites format information for their databases should not affect this decision.
 * Follow these steps:
 * 1) Go to the official site, click "enter site".
 * 2) Click on the man at the lower left, the one who has an image of a black tree on a yellow background over his eye.
 * 3) Click the icon to the uppermost right, which is a blue tree in a white circle on an orange background.
 * In this instance, the verbalization of "heart" is silenced, and an icon of the heart is made to cover his mouth.
 * Also, a simple redirect can easily take care of people who type in I Heart Huckabees, as it is doing right now. Joie de Vivre 19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I Heart Huckabees redirects here so no problem about people not finding the article. Then, as previously stated, the official name of the movie IS "I ♥ Huckabees". Last, I can't see what's so bothering about ♥.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) 'Oppose' Many proponents of moving to "I Heart Huckabees" do not seem to have grasped that the film is intentionally vague on prounciation. It can be read as LOVE huckabees *or* I HEART Huckabees, the rebus symbol is used in this ambiguous way intentionally. To simply title the article "I Heart Huckabees" would be misleading. 68.37.37.28 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose It's the title of the movie, and WP naming policy only notes that the symbol isn't standard english, and doesn't forbid using it. The symbol certainly seems appropriate, especially if there are redirects from both I Heart Huckabees and I Love Huckabees.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The filmakers clearly intended the ambiguity of using a symbol, which is manifest. See above on this talk page where an editor insists the page should be at "heart" or "love" instead of "♥". Newspapers accross the country appear to have accomodated the symbol in reviews and so should we. See Naming conventions (technical restrictions). I think the overriding concern in WP:NC is actually using the most familiar form of the name. In print, "Heart" is only seen for the purposes of alphabetizing or due to technical limitations (as in the title bar for websites). And sometimes not even then. Cool Hand Luke 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Switch to support. Cool Hand Luke 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Redirects are cheap. The heart symbol doesn't display in my browser and I'm still voting against this, because the title is intentionally ambiguous. Dekimasu 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I Love Huckabees must be mentioned as a valid alternative. 199.43.32.87 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Húsönd. Khoikhoi 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Husond and 68.37.37.28. This is not phonics-pedia, this is a written article which should reflect the written title, for which there may in fact be no correct pronunciation. — CharlotteWebb 07:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. The heart symbol appears in the official production notes as well as a great many reviews in reputable print publications (examples:). Generally, Wikipedia doesn't tolerate unusual typography in brand names, but films are generally considered artistic works, even if they are also subject to marketing. Given the nature of the film (dealing largely with corporations and advertising, and having an intentionally postmodern aesthetic) I'm willing to accept that heart in the title is most likely deliberate, and a product of the filmmakers' original artistic intent. That's enough to convince me that we should leave it be, unless we have compelling evidence to the contrary. -- Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 00:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my view, this is the only argument in favor of the heart symbol that I find remotely compelling. However, I think the guidelines should still trump the notion of artistic expression.  If we set the precedent that MoS:TM can be ignored because the nonstandard use is artistic, that could call into question whether the MoS should ever really be applied.  Who's to say a corporation can't have artistry in mind when desiging their trademarks?  Should a company's nonstandard trademark's style be replicated on WP if it sells art supplies but not if it sells fast food?  Do we draw the line with films?  Music?  Books?  Television?  Video games?  This kind of argument basically forces a judgment about what is or is not artistic, while judiciously applying the Manual of Style does not. Croctotheface 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can draw the line where other parties also use their nonstandard name, much like with Yahoo! or eBay, and I think we'd go along with even more irregular tradenames. In this case, a surprising number of sources go along with it&mdash;about 50% if one counts just reviews and includes those who bracketted the heart. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, very few other parties use the exclamation point that's in Yahoo. I was involved in the discussion about moving that article, it wasn't moved because of the mistaken notions of a bunch of editors who contributed to that article and a closing admin who chose to uphold tyranny of the majority rather than Wikipedia's guidelines.  As you may be able to tell, the way Yahoo went troubles me a lot more than this article ever would.  On the other hand, "eBay" does not trouble to me because it's not that far off standard English, which would call for the capital to come one letter before it does.  (That said, I do write it "Ebay" in my personal correspondence.)  For here, the precedent of We Love Katamari, which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned more, strikes me as very compelling, in addition to MoS:TM, accessibility, and even minor league arguments such as "obnoxiousness" and "distraction". Croctotheface 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as setting a prescident goes, I'm not sure that attempting to consider artistic intent is really such a bad thing. Something has to give in our handling of nonstandard film names anyway; right now Clerks is listed as clerks. with a full stop, Alien 3 is listed as Alien³, Pi under π, all of which are topics of perennial, inconclusive debate. In practice, we don't really have a policy here that's effective enough to avoid disruption. In theory, we've got MoS:TM, but in reality, many Wikipedians seem to object to lumping film titles in with trademarks. We could draw a line in the sand here about the heart because it's a special character, and somewhat less typeable than, say, Se7en, but personally, I'd prefer that we actually establish guidelines that consider intent. There's already a seperate section of the MoS that deals with naming conventions for films; it's silent on this subject, but the groundwork is certainly there for treating film titles differently than other trademarks for no other reason than that they are films -- ditto with books, plays, paintings, etc. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, so if people feel there's reason to differentiate here, my feeling is that conceding this and perhaps coming up with guidelines for determining a film's most probably-accurate name (for example, disguishing between a name used in a published shooting script and a graphic logo on an official poster) would lead to the least disruption. In the mean time, I've yet to see a source that gives me reason to doubt the heart is actually part of the name of Huckabees; it's by far and away the most used name for the film unless you specifically discount official sources; and redirects are cheap. To my mind, this doesn't really contradict the spirit of MoS:TM, which seems to punish meaningless promotional typography primarilly because it is meaningless. Huckabees might well be the very best example of the flip side of that equation. -- Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 04:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose; The director himself says in the commentary that the heart symbol / rebus is an essential reason for his fondness for the title -- if we can display it and redirect searches, I don't see what the problem is. Max22 05:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we display it in such a way that a blind person accessing Wikipedia via a text reader will be able to enjoy the article? I'm more interested in accessibility than in fidelity to alternative typography and trademarks. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for the reasons I mentioned above. --  SigPig  |<sup style="color:blue;">SEND - OVER 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose it's officially the heart symbol ♥ which isn't forbidden, just frowned upon. The symbol is essential to the movie, and usually used in reputable reviews, as another editor mentioned above. Moving to I Heart Huckabees could be wrong, too. Who's to say it shouldn't be I Love Huckabees? Every official written source for the film uses the heart symbol. More leeway should be given to works of art in this area since presentation is essential to a piece of art's whole being. Voretus/talk 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the heart symbol frowned upon? I suspect it's due to accessibility reasons.  Can we be certain that everyone accessing Wikipedia will have a browser that supports that symbol?  What about someone using a text reader?  It's because of reasons such as this that I think it's best to keep the cute typography to a minimum. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to clear up this misconception that it "could" be I Love Huckabees. As mentioned, the film's own website has in the title bar I Heart Huckabees.  imdb and all other "official" sources call it this as well.  No respected source calls it I Love Huckabees.  I'll also agree with croctotheface, and point out that we have precedents on this matter.  We Love Katamari was moved to ignore the heart symbol, and I Love New York ignores the heart symbol as well.  I'm not sure why all the support for the heart symbol is only happening here. Bssc81 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:


 * It's worth noting that I agree with the "support" votes in the last vote in their determining that the heart symbol was merely a style like "adidas" or "thirtysomething" that should be ignored on Wikipedia, but wanted to add that all evidence suggests the official title uses the word "Heart". Further, Naming conventions and  Naming conventions (common names) say special characters (like ♥) should be avoided. - this was taken from Talk:We ♥ Katamari, where a similar move is about to pass. - Bssc81 06:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what Bssc81 claims, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says nothing about the use of Unicode symbols. Certainly, it does not say that they "should be avoided".  The only thing that Naming conventions says is that they "are not the common English usage"; this does not prohibit their usage.  In fact, Naming conventions actually supports some uses of Unicode symbols.  Naming conventions (technical restrictions) gives approval of Unicode symbols in article titles. Also, the decision at Talk:We ♥ Katamari is not "about to pass"; because decisions at Wikipedia are made by consensus, not by a popular vote. Joie de Vivre 21:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Response to Joie de Vivre. Even if you want to debate what the official title is, the heart symbol is in violation of Wikipedia policy (click the links provided below).  As well, the production notes use the title "I ♥ HUCKABEES".  Why not use the title in all caps, then?  Or, as per the promotional poster, in all lowercase?  Because Wikipedia has rules independent of how something promotes itself (again, refer to why P!nk got moved).  And the ♥ symbol is in violation (not English).  Heck, it's why ♥ redirects to Heart (symbol)! Bssc81 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Response to Bssc81: That is incorrect, this usage does not violate a Wikipedia policy. See comments above.  Joie de Vivre 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Naming_conventions - note "Non-language characters such as "♥", "★", and "*", sometimes found in advertisements or logos, are not the common English usage." It doesn't outright prohibit them, but the point is clear, when used in conjunction with "common names" and "use English".  And yes, the decision at Katamari is about to pass, with an overwhelming majority. As in that case, the voting will tell the story here. I'd also like to add that "production notes" is certainly NOT a definitive source for the "official" name of the film. - Bssc81 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many proponents of moving to "I Heart Huckabees" do not seem to have grasped that the film is intentionally vague on prounciation. It can be read as LOVE huckabees *or* I HEART Huckabees, the rebus symbol is used in this ambiguous way intentionally. To simply title the article "I Heart Huckabees" would be misleading.
 * Wrong. As I mentioned, please check a) the official website, b) the imdb listing, and c) every other credible movie rating website. It is not ambiguous. The title is "I Heart Huckabees", not "I Love Huckabees" or anything other pronunciation. Bssc81 07:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDB lists I Love Huckabees as an alternativce title.
 * We Love Katamari was moved. – flamurai (t) 12:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For an example showing the reverse of what the nominator's link purports to prove, see here. In my browser, the heart character can be displayed, just not in the title bar. It shows ups as a box. I speculate that's why Fox has another version of the page with "heart" substituting the movie's correct (and intentionally annoying) name. Cool Hand Luke 07:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding "ambiguity" of title: I'm dumbfounded as to how it's ambiguous. The official website refers to "I Heart Huckabees".  The other links I posted above (imdb/rotten tomatoes) do the same.  No credible source calls the film "I love Huckabees".  I mean, when you verbalize the film's name, what do you say?  Or do you just say silent in place of the ♥?There is no ambiguity as to what the ♥ refers to.  Also, I am surprised there is so much disagreement considering how easily We Love Katamari passed with an overwhelming majority.  Bssc81 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No actually, what the official site says is ambiguous. As you can see by my link, they're willing to use the symbol even though google doesn't search the heart symbol. I imagine you reached that mirror sice because search engines ignore the symbol. The ambiguity is strong enough that some reviewers note it. About half of them either use the symbol or put "heart" in parentheses or brackets indicating they were unable to figure out how to make a heart, which they percieve to be the correct title of the movie. This reflects common usage, which differentiates this movie from many others with, for example, the title in all caps or lower case. The creators have commented on how they intentionally made it difficult. As Joie de Vivre brilliantly points out above, the site itself censors the title from being pronounced in an interview. If that's not evidence of intentional ambiguity, I can't imagine what you want. There must be some overwhelming consideration that makes critics and promoters do these strange things, and it's because a symbol is actually part of the film's title.
 * > I mean, when you verbalize the film's name, what do you say?

I say "I Love Huckabees". Lots of people say I Love Huckabees! I Love Huckabees is listed as an official alternative title on IMDB. That is the whole point - both I Love Huckabees and I Heart Huckabees are correct.
 * Frankly, I think there are good reasons to change the title of the article, but if we do we must note that it's at the wrong title. I might be willing to move the page if you dropped the legal fiction the "I Heart Huckabees" is the official name. I will never sign a move request that asserts such because it's flatly wrong. The rational for this title is stronger than Adaptation., which no reviewers used, and certainly better than Æon Flux. It's much, much better than Sign “O” the Times (album), where reviewers tend omit the symbol altogether, and that's the example used by policy. Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly be fine with including something like "I Heart Huckabees, which is often presented as I ♥ Huckabees..." or a similar passage. I have no issue with acknowledging this usage.  I also have no interest in arguing over which spelling is "official", as "official name" arguments have tended not to trump the guidelines, all of which seem to support the move.  Croctotheface 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Croctotheface. Ultimately, while I continue to believe that the title is "officially" named I Heart Huckabees, it is not ultimately the most important issue.  Wikipedia has set guidelines that require use of the most common name, capitalization and dropping of certain words like "the", regardless of what the entity would call itself.  For example, Wikipedia does not use the word "the" in ANY university article name, even if its presence is in the "official" school name.  (See: the school's seal in University of California, Los Angeles for example.)  And as I mentioned a few times, "huckabees" is in lowercase in the poster.  Does that mean Wikipedia should do the same?  No, because we aren't bound by some "official" name.  I'd be ok with the opening Croc just mentioned as well.  So Cool Hand Luke, I agree even in the absence of "I Heart Huckabees" as the official title, there are still many reasons to vote in favour of a move. Bssc81 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But see also The Gambia and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The informal standard seems to be whether the organization can get independent authorities to use the name they dictate, which both the LDS Church and Gambia have had some success it. I really think this is a close call, but I will change my vote for the purpose of consensus if we agree that the opening block should stay as it is, much like how We Love Katamari still uses the correct tradmarked name in the opening block. In my view the symbol version is still most correct, but the article can be under a different heading for the sake of links and WP:UE. Cool Hand Luke 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly can't commit to that, as I don't know whether others will change the title. But for what it's worth, I agree with that (and hopefully you change your vote).  I think it should open "I ♥ Huckabees, pronounced I Heart Huckabees, is a..." -Bssc81 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * >[or a similar passage.] - It would need to read "I Heart/Love Huckabees, written as I ♥ Huckabees...". User:199.43.32.87|199.43.32.87]] 15:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Bssc81 canvassed some of the above users    at a time where opposition was building.--  Hús  ö  nd  15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, is that against the rules? I "canvassed" the people who had previously voted support in the last vote.  I figured they'd want to vote again.  I don't think that should invalidate their opinions - they are legitimate votes (ie not sockpuppet votes).  I didn't know that if I did that, I'd have to let everyone who voted know.  If this somehow invalidates the vote, then I apologize.   Bssc81 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding (which is admittedly not very complete) is that it is not proper for an editor to only inform people of a vote who could be expected to vote a certain way. However, I can't imagine that it would somehow invalidate what users who were canvassed actually have to say about the issue.  In this case, if anything, it seems that there is some movement of people into the "move" camp from the "don't move" camp. Croctotheface 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is extremely frowned upon, as such behavior strongly disrupts Wikipedia's natural consensus building system (see Canvassing). Calling back users who had previously supported this will naturally make this discussion lean towards support. Especially if, and as you can see, those currently opposing are not drawing previous opposers.-- Hús  ö  nd  19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin I have now informed users who had previously opposed this move in order to establish a rough canvass equilibrium.-- Hús  ö  nd  20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it was an issue but now understand why it was. Had you not contacted them, I would have to clear this up.  Thanks for doing it. Bssc81 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I Heart Huckabees and I Love Huckabees both redirect here anyway, I simply have to file this under "who in their right mind really gives a shit?" Is the existing title really harming anything? Considering that a person will get to the correct article no matter what they type, is using the heart symbol actually causing any meaningful problems? No. So why bother wasting everybody's time with a meaningless debate over it? Bearcat 03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accessibility. It's worse to have articles that a blind person accessing Wikipedia via a text reader will not be able to understand.  It's worse to have an article that will be filled with question marks or little box characters on some poor old 1990s computer that doesn't make the heart symbol, but which is the only way some kid in Uganda has access to the knowledge base that is Wikipedia.  Accessibility is a higher priority than fidelity to trademarks. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Closed. I've removed the move request from Requested moves, due to the lack of consensus here. —Cleared as filed. 03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't the proper procedure. The move request does not go away - it is labeled simply as "no consensus" here.  Please undo that. Bssc81 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Universal Interconnectivity?
On an unrelated note, why is the theory of Universal Interconnectivity its own article? Surely if the theory only exists in Huckabees (at least by that name), it can be addressed in the main article. Unless I'm missing something. A google search for the phrase seems to turn up more hits related to computer networks than to philosophy-related topics. -- Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 05:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Name
Can somebody request a move again? This article should NOT be at "I ♥ Huckabees", it should be "I Heart Huckabees" or "I Love Huckabees". If nobody else does by tomorrow night, I will. TJ Spyke 01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was about to say the same thing. MoS:TM is NOT ambiguous about the specific use of the "heart" symbol. The title of the movie is I Heart Huckabees - IMDB even uses it this way.  This is no different from the P!nk move.  It's silly to suggest the heart is unpronounceable.  If that's the case, how do you pronounce P!nk?  It's a no-brainer here in my view.Bssc81 07:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * MoS:TM states that such symbols should not be used "purely for decoration". This symbol is not used purely for decoration, it is used because it is the exact character used in the item's name.  Also, see my comment below; Unicode characters, such as ♥, are permitted in article titles.  Joie de Vivre 16:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is used just for decoration. See the links I provided at Talk:We ♥ Katamari which say characters like "♥" should NOT be used. TJ Spyke 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the creators of I ♥ Huckabees used the symbol purely for decoration, but Wikipedia editors are not using it purely for decoration, we're using it for accuracy. The title is "I ♥ Huckabees".  Anything else is not the title.  Thus, using the symbol is not for decoration.  As I stated over at Talk:We ♥ Katamari, the policy I cite below clearly, explicitly states that the use of Unicode characters in article titles is permitted.  Whereas the policy you cited states only that "Non-language characters...  are not the common English usage."  This does not conflict with the policy that approves of certain uses of Unicode characters.  Joie de Vivre 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The title of the movie is I Heart Huckabees.  Check out the official site (in the title bar) and as mentioned earlier, the IMDB listing as well.  Thus, the correct name of the article is I Heart Huckabees.  The actual "heart symbol" is much like other writing in advertising - it is solely there for style.  This is no different than if the advertising poster listed the title in all caps or all lowercase (which, ironically, it is in this case.)  For the same reason we aren't showing "i ♥ huckabees" (lowercase) as the article name, we shouldn't be showing the heart symbol either.  Look up i heart huckabees in Google and you will see that every legitimate/official-type source lists the movie name as I Heart Huckabees.  It's not ambiguous at all. Bssc81 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Now go into the site itself. Wherever the title of the movie is mentioned in the text, it is written as "I ♥ Huckabees"; when the talking head mentions the title, his voice is silenced and a heart appears in front of his mouth to block lipreading. The only reason I can think that the title bar of the page is "I Heart Huckabees" is that maybe that character does not show in title bars (it doesn't on mine -- this page is titled "I (square character denoting unprintable character) Huckabees"). [RottenTomatoes says under the title "also known as "I (Heart) Huckabees", "I Love Huckabees"" It would therefore seem to me that the movie producers et al intend the official title to be "I ♥ Huckabees", and to be unpronounceable (and I believe intentionally annoying, à la Prince's 1990's squiggle). --  SigPig  |<sup style="color:blue;">SEND - OVER 06:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Unicode characters are permitted in article titles. This is directly addresssed at Naming conventions (technical restrictions) - Pictorial names. One example of a Unicode character in an article title is seen in Sign_%E2%80%9C%E2%98%AE%E2%80%9D_the_Times. The current title of this article is accurate, it is upheld by policy, and it should not be changed. Joie de Vivre 16:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I gather, the page you linked to simply explains the technical restrictions, not style restrictions. The page says it is possible to include unicode characters in a title, while another page specifically says not to use the heart symbol. Regardless if the creator of the work wanted to use symbols for the title, it still seems like an encyclopedia should stick to using the characters which are actually part of the language it is written in.  --Frantik 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The title
You know what I find funny? All this debate over what the title should look like, all these lengthy, researched arguments, serious discussion of policy... I'll always think of the movie as I Pipe Huckabees now, just to pretend this place was the first place I heard of it.

My opinion: of course the title should be as accurate as possible, in a world where the symbol was universally readable. It's not that world. dharmabum 08:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for bringing this up again Voretus 15:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! dharmabum 07:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move, 2007
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

I ♥ Huckabees → — "I ♥ Huckabees" simply does not render properly on some browsers. If someone comments about how this is the official name on the poster, or how it displays just fine on your browser, they are missing the point. I have used a few browsers in my time on Wikipedia (Safari, Firefox, and Camino), and "♥" does not display at all on the last two I've used. The page should either be moved to "I Heart Huckabees" or "I Love Huckabees", but until all current browsers display "♥" properly, it should not be at "I ♥ Huckabees". The best analogy I can imagine is if "Y" didn't appear properly in browsers. Even if a topic is properly titled with a "Y", it shouldn't be included in a title. —-- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 06:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as per request -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 06:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Surely this has already been discussed enough in the two previous move listings? But see below for some more questions. Andrewa 14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support it would be better to avoid non-English characters in the titles of English Wikipedia articles. 132.205.44.5 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has been discussed ad nauseam before. Official name contains the heart. The fact that it may not render properly on some people's browsers shouldn't be a reason to lower the accuracy of the name of this article. It's not Wikipedia's fault that some people won't update their browsers (nor get a decent, free one).-- Hús  ö  nd  00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We are intended to be available to everyone, including those who haven't updated their browser - often because they are consulting us on a public computer. I trust Husond will reconsider his comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The rebus is in the official title. Reginmund 01:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support We don't do funny typography even if corporate marketing departments do; and the nom has several excellent reasons why. Even if it were not a practical problem, WP:NAME expressly deprecates the heart symbol, as not English. And it is a practical problem: telling one editor to reconfigure his browser will not help our future readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I'd only add, if I ♥ Huckabees doesn't display correctly for you on Mozilla Firefox, then I suspect the problem is with the installation and/or configuration of your browser. Don't know about Safari (web browser) or Camino, but are you sure it's not a similar problem there too? Andrewa 06:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


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

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Character Biogs
I beefed up the character becasue they seemed a bit lacking. (MadMaxBeyondThunderdome 02:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)MadMaxBeyondThunderdome 10/4/07)

Name
Why isn't imdb the ultimate authority? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/

Official name and poster are different things. Barraki 20:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone mentioned above, the copyright application form had a heart on it. The title, as it appears in the film itself contains a heart, and everyone who worked on the film seems to think that the title has a heart symbol in it. I don't see what the problem is, and I don't see why anyone is still discussing the name when they could be improving the article itself. Davidovic 11:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, standard Wikipedia policy is to not honor nonstandard-English brand and trademark names, and to instead write them in normal English. That's why, for example, our article on the magazine is at Time (magazine), not at TIME; see Manual of Style (trademarks) and WP:NAME. As for spending time improving the article, one might suggest the people fighting to keep it at a bizarre non-renderable-in-most-fonts location might spend their time doing that instead (on a standard OS X install the title is shown as "I | Huckabees"). --Delirium 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it titled "I ? Huckabees" now? I thought the debate was between the heart symbol or just "heart". --Mightygiant 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming
It's completly ridiculus that this article is named "I ♥ Huckabees". It goes straight against all established naming conventions on wikipedia. If you have any respect for naming conventions, this article should be moved to "I Heart Huckabees" immediately. --MrStalker talk 15:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have declined the redirect's speedy for now, this seems like a controversial move based on the discussion above, if when a concensus is established it dictates that the page should be moved per the naming convention just leave me message informing this and I will move it. - <font color="#0000DD"><font color="#0066FF">Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb e a n ~ H. Q.  18:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I Heart Huckabees is better. We've had this discussion before about album/song titles, and as I recall the decision was that article titles shouldn't reflect whatever odd capitalization/etc. the jacket art used... so I think that's relevant here. --W.marsh 21:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please give it some time; perhaps a year. This has been propose three times in the last 13 months, making it about the only damn reason anyone talks about this movie here. There are better ways to improve the encyclopedia, and another request to the same title probably cannot succeed at this time. Cool Hand Luke 02:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid / POV for full transcript of "Tension during filming" in addition to extended discussion?
For a movie with such interesting themes and humor and dialog, why is it that the only large quote of dialog in the article is "Tension during filming" with bitch, cunt, and 21 usages of fuck? Seriously? Is that encyclopedic knowledge?

Yes, I can understand why people want the section "Tension during filming" and reference to the leaked videos as a pop culture thing, but isn't the already five paragraphs about it enough without a full transcript in addition? it seems like its presence there is more about bringing attention unduly to onset incidents that are minor in the Grand Scheme of Things. As if other movies and art projects didn't have yelling matches and curse words?

The full transcript here seems like it is playing a role of tabloid journalism, not encyclopedic knowledge.

I propose BOTH of the following...:
 * keeping all the descriptive paragraphs about the tension during filming
 * removing the transcript, as it seems gossip and tabloid inconsistent with what wikipedia is... and is not

-- Garkbit 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming cont'd
There's no evidence that the heart used on the poster is in fact the Unicode heart character; it could be simply a picture of a heart, in which case using the ♥ in the title of this article would qualify as original research. eae (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the weakest logic I've seen on the title yet. The unicode heart is simply a picture of a heart.--SeizureDog (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I ♥ Huckabees → I Heart Huckabees — per Naming conventions (use English) - Article titles should use the Latin alphabet, not any other alphabets or other writing systems such as syllabaries or Chinese characters. However, any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name). Also, a non-Latin-alphabet redirect could be created to link to the actual Latin-alphabet-titled article. —Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support - as nominator, based on several germane conventions, such as in the main Naming conventions, under Special Characters... "Non-language characters such as "♥", "★", and "*", sometimes found in advertisements or logos, are not the common English usage." As has been noted previously, the ♥ character may not render properly in some browsers and operating systems, may not be able to read properly by someone who uses a text reader, doesn't display correctly in the title bar, etc.  It should be a redirect, and it should be noted at the top of the article. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:MOSTRADE. This is a borderline case, but I support; reader convenience is most important, and the chances that this is, like Besançon, an established usage are small. Evidence should be presented to the contrary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Per WP:NC(UE), "If you are talking about a ... film ... use the most commonly used English version... If there is no usual English form of the name, use a generally accepted system of transliteration." Per WP:MOSTM, "Avoid using special characters that ... simply substitute for English words (e.g. ♥ used for "love")..." Ἀλήθεια (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Suppose Dang...a heart in an article title, that would be wrong, guidelines/policies or no...but thankfully it is against policies too. Banish it to the dungeon where we keep Colbert. Narson (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The heart is a decorative substitute for a word. "I Love New York" is best example of how it should be done. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Please see this search result for reason. HokieRNB (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per above. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would ♥ to see this moved. Cross porpoises (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I think there is evidence that the ♥ has entered English usage, at least at some level. For instance, see the New York Times Review of the movie.  I disagree that no non-standard character can exist in wikipedia titles; instead I would say that non-standard character can be used only if supported by English usage.Erudy (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom, WP:NAME, WP:ACCESS and WP:MOSTM. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Comment - please note Toys "R" Us instead of Toys Я Us, Sign o' the Times (album) instead of Sign ☮ the Times (album), and I Love New York instead of I ♥ New York. Same argument. If you can't type it on a standard keyboard, it should not be in the article title. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

properly written

 * and properly written I ♥ Huckabees

Shouldn't the proper version be stated first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.221.140 (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because a bunch of editors have an absurd obsession with following the rules. Voretus (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wanting these articles to be accessible to people with different browsers, and to blind readers who use text-to-speech software... that's absurd. (If I'm missing some irony here, forgive me. It's difficult to tell with text. For the record, I am being ironic, and I do support accessibility over cuteness.) -GTBacchus(talk) 05:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It took almost a year for it to be moved. It's funny how so many editors obsessed over the title, yet the article lacks horribly in quality.  So much time could have been spent improving the article. That's ironic. —  Mike   Allen   07:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.


 * Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on I Heart Huckabees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070825002255/http://www.foxstore.com:80/detail?item=1376 to http://www.foxstore.com/detail?item=1376

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 03:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on I Heart Huckabees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huckabees.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.open-spaces.org/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jaffeandjaffe.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.caterinevauban.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041001090202/http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/huckabees/ to http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/huckabees/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Heart Huckabees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041001090202/http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/huckabees/ to http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/huckabees/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)