Talk:Shooting Stars (South Korean TV series)

Name of article
The name of the show is shooting stars not sh**ting stars which makes it sound vulgar Nagol0929 (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is considered a page-move war. CastJared (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just dont get why people think sh**ting stars is encyclopedic Nagol0929 (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nagol0929 I opposed your move hence now you're required to have consensus to move to Shooting Stars (South Korean TV series), in which you're free to filed for WP:RMCM with reliable sources provided to WP:PROVEIT since you stated exactly that at WP:RPPI. And also kindly answer, why does your wording looks and sounds exactly like per this diff??? @CastJared There isn't any page warring but just a one-time revert hence rather misleading to interpret it as such ... maybe I need to click that fish on your userpage 😅.  —  Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nagol0929 I had filed WP:RMCM for you and signed on behalf for you, you're free to update the rationale however you like.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nagol0929 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I got inspiration from them bc they made a very good comment and i liked it Nagol0929 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2023

 * 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. (non-admin closure) { {ping&#124;ClydeFranklin }} (t/c) 16:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sh**ting Stars → Shooting Stars (South Korean TV series) – Per my reasoning above. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRECISION. The producer's website uses exactly the current title. With secondary news sources such as Hong Kong's SCMP, Singapore's AsiaOne, US's CNBC, Philippines's ABS-CBN, Asia edition of British's magazine Tatler, and NME, using the same title in their article.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's only a case of Precision all other criteria being equal, and consistent sources, which isn't the case here. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:SURPRISE English language readers are inevitably going to see this as 'Shitting stars' and even if that weren't the case MOS:TMRULES applies—blindlynx 15:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per TMRULES. Also, yeah, their website uses it, but with a font that's a lot different than ours--it actually looks like stars, whereas the current title looks like what might happen after I eat a whole bunch of these Red   Slash  18:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per reasoning above and other support comments. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per reasoning above because Wikipedia is not censored.
 * CastJared (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This support is hilarious because the word being "censored" is "shooting", which is kinda funny. But it illustrates the point that, without its original, heavily artistically stylish font, normal people will badly misunderstand what word is being "censored" Red   Slash  05:51, 15 March 2023 (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.
 * Support for we do not use stylings in article titles, and that's all those asterisks are. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)