Talk:Shoot (advertising magazine)/Archives/2014

Requested move 10 July 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Shoot (advertising magazine) → SHOOT Magazine / SHOOTonline (entertainment & commercial production magazine and website – original info entered by someone not known to us at SHOOT and is incorrect. SHOOT should always be all CAPS and since we expanded 10 years ago to cover all of entertainment & advertising production, we should not be called solely a advertising magazine. Since online has become more important and print issues less frequent, heading should include SHOOT Magazine & SHOOTonline – Shootnews (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That is not a correct format for a Wikipedia article name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose MOS:SLASH, WP:SUBPAGE avoid slashes in article titles, they look like subpages, which are not supported. WP:PRECISE don't over specify article names, especially with that very long unnecessary descriptor in place of a disambiguator. MOS:TM/MOS:CAPS unnecessary capitalization. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose MOS:SLASH, WP:SUBPAGE. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To the OP: As others have stated, your proposal violates several guidelines in Wikipedia's Manual of Style, including:
 * Manual of Style/Trademarks: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners."
 * Manual of Style/Capital letters: "Avoid unnecessary capitalization"
 * PRECISE: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that"
 * Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per all of the above. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2014 (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.