Talk:No More "I Love You's"

Fair use rationale for Image:No more i love 2 - annie lennox.jpg
Image:No more i love 2 - annie lennox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming
If the song is "No More "I Love You's"" then shouldn't the page be under No More "I Love You's"? SKS2K6 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Lover Speaks - No More "I Love You"'s (single).jpg
The image Image:The Lover Speaks - No More "I Love You"'s (single).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:The Lover Speaks - No More I Love You's.ogg
 * Image:The Lover Speaks - No More I Love You's.ogg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

US dept. stores?
The sentence "It is often heard in department stores in the United States." seems silly and isn't cited or anything. Is there any problem removing it? Ccheever (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

links
both links for 'Whiter Shade of Pale' are to the original instead of the cover/single... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.166.161 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

this song title is misspelled
The correct spelling is "No More I Love Yous"... you don't use an apostrophe to indicate plurality. Now how do we get the title of the article corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyJ (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The incorrect spelling is the song's actual title, though. SKS (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with original poster that the song title is misspelt, and with respondent that the article needs to honour the misspelling, as it is how the song is spelt. 49.183.160.118 (talk)£

Requested move 28 October 2018

 * 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: Consensus to move, therefore, moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No More I Love You's → No More 'I Love You's – The pair of single quotation marks indicate the phrase that the singer is promising not to say any more. One unpaired quotation mark is illogical, and resembles an apostrophe - which is incorrect for a plural. Gunzle (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like most of the sources, as well as both covers illustrated, call it No More "I Love You's". Station1 (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: The title includes a pluralized quote of the phrase "I Love You". The current article title seems to have a grocer's apostrophe (which is improper) and no quote marks. On Wikipedia, we put song titles in quotes, so the "I Love You" should be formatted as a quotation within a quotation (MOS:QWQ). (Can we find any other examples of song titles that include quoted phrases?) Unfortunately, the promotional material for this song (e.g., the accompanying artwork) appears to be improperly punctuated – No More "I Love You's" just doesn't make sense to me. But the current title is different from either form, so the current title is not appropriate and the suggested form is an improvement. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just an observation, that although we do put song titles in quotes in articles and dab pages, we don't in article titles. Station1 (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a bit tricky. But No More "I Love You's" really doesn't parse correctly. I can't think of any other song titles that include quoted phrases in their titles, but with all the songs discussed on Wikipedia, there be some others. I looked for "I Just Called to Say 'I Love You'" or 'I Just Called to Say "I Love You"', but it does not have quote marks as written. It is at "I Just Called to Say I Love You". I suppose that parses correctly as "I Just Called to Say [that] I Love You". —BarrelProof (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I found one other article that has a quote in the title: "Everything Starts with an 'E'", although in this case the quote is only a single letter. Anyhow, that one is consistent with the suggestion of "No More 'I Love You's". —BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support because reliable sources use different spellings. Therefore, the proper formatting rules of Wikipedia should be followed and that makes No More 'I Love You's the best option as per Barrelproof.
 * No More I Love You's (PopMatters, Stereogum, M&M)
 * No More I Love Yous (Digitalspy)
 * No More "I Love You's" (Billboard, Allmusic)
 * No More 'I Love You's (Independent)
 * No More "I Love Yous" (Guardian, NYTimes) Flooded  with them hundreds 18:30, 4 November 2018 (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.

Requested move 2 July 2021

 * 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. This was a tough one! Open for over a month! There were good MOS and policy-based arguments on both sides. Ambiguity in policies is typically resolved by consensus, and ultimately consensus was in favor of the move. Anyone who vehemently disagrees with my assessment as an uninvolved editor should feel free to re-open or do a third RM at some point down the road. (non-admin closure) Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

No More 'I Love You's → No More "I Love You's" – The page should be at what the actual title of the song is, not Wikipedia's attempt to fix the grammar of the song's title. The song was released with an apostrophe there. jp×g 21:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Sam Sailor 22:04, 2 July 2021 (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 policy on article titles.


 * Move to No More 'I Love You's'. Double quotes are not used in article titles. 162 etc. (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * not sure about that: from Article titles: . Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a bit unclear on my part. I believe there was a Simpsons-related RM which touched on this a couple months ago, although I can't find it right now.  Essentially, since the title of a song (or episode) is enclosed in double quotes, then the internal quotes should be single quotes.  As in "Marge Simpson in: 'Screaming Yellow Honkers'", or "No More 'I Love You's'". 162 etc. (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the principle and it is I think consistent with the general spirit of our naming policies and practices, for example Manual of Style/Trademarks. It may not be explicit in policy yet. But perhaps it should be? Andrewa (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is discussed at Manual_of_Style/Titles: Quotation marks simply used as a form of title stylization on a cover are removed. They are retained within a title when reliable sourcing demonstrates they indicate an actual quotation, or sarcasm. If the title is put into double quotation marks as a minor work, its interior quotation marks are rendered as single quotes. However, this is only relevant to how the title of the song should be rendered in prose. I don't think it follows that the article title should use single quotes. i.e. I don't see any reason to pretend there are virtual double quotation marks enclosing the title. Marge Simpson in: 'Screaming Yellow Honkers' was moved to its current title in May via RM/TR using this rationale, but before that it had always been at the title with double-quotes, and the footnote at MOS:TITLE still links to it by that name. In fact, I think the wording of that footnote makes it very clear that the MoS should not be read as requiring that article titles for minor works must always use single rather than double quotes: See also the TV-episode article Marge Simpson in: "Screaming Yellow Honkers", the title of which would be given as "Marge Simpson in: 'Screaming Yellow Honkers in running text. Colin M (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: The nomination and the only !vote (which challenges the nom) both seem to be personal opinions. The only policy-based argument so far is the one challenging the only !vote. Please base discussion on WP:AT and other relevant policies. Andrewa (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is a weird one. However, ultimately our manual of style guides us to use names as discussed in reliable sources, and through a search in Google books the proposed title, in addition to being the "correct" official one, is also the commonly used one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above and the MOS. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It's the form most commonly used in RS, and it's also consistent with MOS:DOUBLE's advice to generally prefer double quotes. The footnote mentions that one reason is that they're more readibly distinguishable from apostrophes, which is especially relevant in this case. Sdrqaz and 162 etc. make an interesting argument, but ultimately I don't think it's supported by the MoS (see my comment above for why). Colin M (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the previous RM discussion of 2018 and its comment from Flooded with them hundreds, which demonstrated mixed punctuation use in independent reliable sources. So far in this latest RM discussion, no one has mentioned independent sources yet. Sources that are independent should be the ones we are looking to. The independent reliable sources have a mixture of uses, as surveyed by Flooded with them hundreds. Wikipedia guidelines say that when the usage in independent reliable sources is mixed, we should use the form that most resembles ordinary English formatting. That is the form that we already have. The title expresses a desire for no more repetitions of the quoted expression "I Love You". So, following quote-within-quote formatting, the title would be as shown at the top of the infobox: "No More 'I Love You's". I don't see a problem here that needs fixing, and the sources we should be studying are the independent reliable ones. The Independent uses the current form. If you want to use double quotes rather than single ones, wouldn't that be No More "I Love You"s or No More "I Love Yous" (per The Guardian and The New York Times), rather than No More "I Love You's"? —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So far in this latest RM discussion, no one has mentioned independent sources yet. Yaksar said they browsed Google Books and found that the proposed title was the most common. I have to admit, in my !vote I just took them at their word, but since you've raised doubts about this, I repeated their experiment, looking through the first several pages of results on Google Books. I found four distinct RS (Billboard, The Advocate, Chase's Calendar of Events, and a novel published by Simon and Schuster) which mentioned the song, and all of them used the form No More "I Love You's". I also found four other sources that mentioned the song, but didn't count them because they appeared to be self-published or published by obscure publishing houses that might not have any editorial review standards (but FWIW, all of them also used the styling of the proposed title). (Also, my argument in the alternative is that it is the proposed title and not the current one which "most resembles ordinary English formatting" (As I stated earlier, I do not take up with the view that we should pretend there are virtual double-quotes around the title when choosing its formatting.)) Colin M (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think it should be double quote marks rather than single ones, wouldn't that be No More "I Love You"s or No More "I Love Yous"? What would the extra single quote mark in No More "I Love You's" be for in ordinary English? —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, you're right, my mind glossed over that detail. Some people do use an apostrophe to mark pluralization of quoted material, which I think is what's going on with this title, but it's not standard. I retract my argument in the alternative. I continue to think the proposed title is the one we should use based on the degree to which it's favoured in RS, but I'm definitely willing to update if anyone provides any further data (ideally collected in such a way that it's clear that it's not cherry-picked). Colin M (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. As I mentioned in the previous RM, both covers illustrated, as well as most of the sources (at the time at least), call it No More "I Love You's". In any case, the 2018 addition of the single quote mark in front of the "I" makes no sense no matter how you look at it. Station1 (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The opening single quote mark before the "I" is there to match the closing single quote mark after the "u". —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because the mark after the "u" is clearly an apostrophe being used to pluralize the phrase "I Love You", not a quote mark. As an apostrophe (yes, I know it's not standard use, but is used sometimes) it cannot be balanced by another mark. This is how it is used on the covers and in most sources. If a single or double quote mark appears before the "I" it must be balanced by a closing single or double quote mark after the "s". Station1 (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if we accept the idea of using an apostrophe to create a plural (which is not standard English formatting), how does the quote make sense? Would anyone ever say "I Love You's"? I can understand that someone would say "I Love You" multiple times, but if that is the meaning someone is attempting to convey, the pluralization should go outside the quote marks, not inside them. (Hence "I Love You"s or, with a grocer's apostrophe, "I Love Yous.) Again, Wikipedia guidelines say that when the usage in independent reliable sources is mixed, we should use the form that most resembles ordinary English formatting. The proposed form is rather distant from ordinary English formatting. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's usual to pluralize outside the quotation marks. This may be instructive - https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/71395/plurals-of-quotations-chorus-of-hello-s-ooh-s-ah-s/569335 - primarily for the citations from CMS and dictionary.com. In any case, an artistic choice has been made in two separate cases, several independent sources and at least two style guides have concurred, so we should go with that choice. Station1 (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If I understand that Stack Exchange discussion correctly, it is saying the CMS would prefer No More "I Love Yous" (like The Guardian and The New York Times), and would discourage the grocer's apostrophe. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I read it. On the other hand, dictionary.com (admittedly not as authoritative) says: "The plural of a word or phrase in quotation marks may be formed by adding an apostrophe and an s, with the closing quotation marks following the s...." Both agree a plural ending should not follow closing quotation marks. Station1 (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's funny that the example given from that dictionary.com comment talks about where quotation marks should go but doesn't actually use quotation marks in the example ("... with the closing quotation marks following the s: How many more ok's can he use in a conversation?"). I looked for that commentary on dictionary.com to see if it is actually there and being copied correctly, and I couldn't find it. There may be some differences in style, like with logical quotation versus internal quotation. The last bit of advice seems good: "A better option is to reword," but unfortunately we don't have that option here. Reviewing the above, it looks like I'm the only person who has been defending the current title in this discussion, which has been open nearly a full month, and both the CMS and dictionary.com preferences don't support the current title, so I do not object if someone wants to close this as moved at this point. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Curiouser and curiouser. I cannot find the "Marge Simpson in: 'Screaming Yellow Honkers'" RM right now but there does seem to have been one. RM closers are often unapologetically careless when it comes to talk pages. I guess we are all busy. I did find Talk:Marge Simpson in: 'Screaming Yellow Honkers', and Talk:Knights Who Say "Ni!" which I see I closed myself. Watch this space or more research of course welcome. Andrewa (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ping who made an edit to use the single quotation mark in May. Were you behind this RM? 162 etc. (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. The requested move can be found here. As I stated in the request, the change was pursuant to MOS:QWQ; as pointed out above, TV episodes are always in double quotation marks (MOS:NOITALIC) and as such, the internal quotation marks should be single. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, so this was done at WP:RMT, which is why there was no discussion. I agree User:Sdrqaz's interpretation, and think it also applies to the above RM.  162 etc. (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The issues for the Knights Who Say "Ni!" seem a bit different. The RM only discussed whether quote marks should be used around "Ni!" or not, but did not discuss whether they should be single or double quote marks. Also, the article says that its subject is the group of knights, not a creative work that has "Knights Who Say 'Ni! as its title. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 6 August 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.