Talk:Wonder Pets!

Requested move 1

 * 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: No move. No consensus the "!" is used in sources enough to qualify as the common name or to be otherwise preferable per Wikipedia conventions.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Cúchullain t/ c  18:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wonder Pets → Wonder Pets! – This page should be moved to its proper title, Wonder Pets!, as the show is spelled this way on the logo. Momsandy (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: The show's proper title has an exclamation mark at the end. On the show's official site, official Facebook page, and TV.com, it spells it with an exclamation mark. A redirect from "Wonder Pets" will be made (because some Wikipedians will not think to type in the mark when searching) to the properly-spelled title. Momsandy (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support conditionally:The logo should not be a basis for the move, lest we would have to move Fanboy and Chum Chum to Fanboy & ChumChum, or Friends to F • R • I • E • N • D • S. That said, I think it's reasonable to move since printed literature refers to the series as The Wonder Pets! as does the Nick website. The one hiccup (i.e. the condition) is that we also have to decide whether or not to include the article "The", as it does appear in the articles. The Dukes of Hazzard, for example, has a The. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, We use YouTube and not You Tube but now I favour "Y • o • u • T • u • b • e". Cyphoidbomb that was comment of the month.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  19:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment One could argue that "Wonder Pets!" minus the "The" would be acceptable due to our lack of love for articles (although, "The Beatles" was quite a fight). Based on Little Airplane's own website, the show does appear to be styled using the "!" (although, they seem to use them far too often in titles, so maybe it's accidental)  the panda ₯’  20:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * On NickJr.com, Wonder Pets! is spelled with an exclamation mark. Momsandy (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * NickJr is not a reliable source for the title of anything. My TVGuide shows it without one; my RogersTV menu shows it without one ... and we cannot trust those either.  the panda ₯’  20:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it isn't used in running text (in sentences) in Google Books, why should we use it? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, it is used in running text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momsandy (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose – None of Viacom's registered trademarks include the exclamation mark. The logo is not relevant.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But many of their copyrighted works contain an exclamation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And many don't; so what? Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In copyright statements, it is spelled with an exclamation mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momsandy (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't I say that? Are you responding to a specific point? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Although the show does apparently have an exclamation mark in the copyright, the average person searching for it on Wikipedia will not know that and will type simply "Wonder Pets", sans exclamation mark. No opinion on the move, just throwing that out there. Luthien22 (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what redirects are for! :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What does that even mean, "in the copyright", or "in copyright statements"? Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @Dicklyon - It means that the trademark name is "Wonder Pets!" and it is spelled on official documents that way. Momsandy (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you demonstrate this with a source? What are these "official documents" to which you refer? (Trademark search, FYI) And please use indents when replying to preserve the discussion threading. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree with Cyphoidbomb entirely. There is clearly an exclamation mark in the title, and a redirect from "Wonder Pets" (without the exclamation) to "Wonder Pets!" (which the page should be moved to) would clear up the only standing problem (the general user typing the title in without an exclamation mark). There is no reason to keep the actual page without an exclamation mark, as the mark is clearly part of the title, and other Nickelodeon/Nick Jr. television series pages (e.g. "Wallykazam!" and "Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!") include the marks in their titles. I feel we should move the page, leaving a "Wonder Pets" redirect. Hope this helps clear things up! 173.48.149.83 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't have a preference. This is Momsandy's initiative. As it stands, I think it's sort of 50/50 whether or not it's worth moving since some sources include an exclamation, and some don't. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I understand what you mean, Cyphoidbomb. The move may not seem all that important to most Wikipedians, but it would make more sense to move it than to keep the page as it is, since the title does have the mark. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, therefore we should try to keep the page titles accurate. I would move the page myself, because I understand what Momsandy is trying to accomplish, but I'm not even a registered user, so I can't move pages. 173.48.149.83 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - The exclamation point does indeed seem to be part of the official title of the show, so it should be included in the title of the article. It can be dropped in running text if it's awkward there.  (NickJr. appears to do just that on their website.) BMK (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per policy: WP:COMMONNAME, nobody is going to come to Wikipedia and type the exclamation mark at the end to find the article about this TV show. Most people don't even know the exclamation exists.  the panda ₯’  20:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:DangerousPanda - Why should shows like Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!, Go, Diego, Go!, Yo Gabba Gabba!, etc. have the exclamation mark when this one, too, has it necessary? It doesn't make sense for the page not to have it if it actually has it in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momsandy (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! Wow! Wobbzy is obviously different because exclamation marks occur in the middle of the sentence. The other two are errors that we need not repeat - indeed, we should rush over there and start requested moves to get those corrected  the panda ₯’  19:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that "Go, Diego, Go!" is a command, and "Yo Gabba Gabba!" is an interjection. Although I would prefer to see them moved to titles sans exclamation points, they are not as egregious as "Wonder Pets!". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Agreeing with the panda didn't they have an episode featuring a panda?  I myself would rather type "Wonder Pets" and come straight to the article rather than typing "Wonder Pets!" and going to a disambig page. Even if a redirect were to be created it would just mean too much clutter. Plus I haven't seen any source that's reliable and refers to the cartoon as "Wonder Pets!" sounds promotional anyways. --Acetotyce (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why yes; yes they did :-) Next time I get called to ANI or ArbCom, perhaps I should call the WonderPets?  the panda ₯’  22:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: TV.com (http://www.tv.com/shows/wonder-pets/) and the show's official Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/wonderpets)refer to it with an exclamation mark, Acetotyce. 173.48.149.83 (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * TV.com is a user-contributed site. Don't think it meets WP:RS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Dicklyon and others, along with the fact that we generally don't include non-pronounceable symbols in titles. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: If it is the show's title, it's the show's title - it doesn't matter if people "won't think to type it" - that's why redirects were invented. If Yo Gabba Gabba! can have the mark, so can Wonder Pets! (and all other shows with an exclamation mark). I think that the move should happen immediately. P.S. - This is my first edit on my new computer - ooh, ah! 50.200.231.209 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that @Momsandy created a re-direct page that goes from "Wonder Pets!" (what we're discussing to move it to) to Wonder Pets (the current article). Does that solve the problem here? Luthien22 (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... it seems to only be for the talk page, not the actual article. Still, maybe a re-direct from "Wonder Pets!" to the current page might be the best solution here. Luthien22 (talk) 04:10, 24 September 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.

Note: Although signed as Momsandy, the edits above are currently associated with the user account of User:Libramedia. They do not appear in the contribution history of User:Momsandy. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Move review (requested move)
Wonder Pets → Wonder Pets! – This page should be moved to its proper title, Wonder Pets!, as the show is spelled this way on the logo. Momsandy (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A discussion was "closed" regarding the move earlier, but a consensus was never reached (as stated by the closer). This move review concerning how the move should still happen will, hopefully, determine consensus on the matter. (If shows like Yo Gabba Gabba!, The Mighty B!, and All Grown Up! can have the marks in their page titles, this one deserves to be spelled correctly as well.)

Show your support to the cause by typing Support at the beginning of your message.


 * Support: The show's proper title has an exclamation mark at the end. If shows like Yo Gabba Gabba!, The Mighty B!, and All Grown Up! can have the marks in their page titles, this one deserves to be spelled correctly as well. On the show's official site, official Facebook page, and TV.com, it spells it with an exclamation mark. A redirect from "Wonder Pets" will be made (because some Wikipedians will not think to type in the mark when searching) to the properly-spelled title. Momsandy (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion has only just been closed. You can't keep requesting page moves because you didn't get the result you wanted. Accept the fact that no consensus was reached and move on. Note too that signature timestamps should reflect the time that a post was made, not backdated as you've done, and it's inappropriate to direct editors to vote a particular way. Editors are free to support or oppose. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This request is absolutely disruptive. If was logged into my admin account, I'd take action accordingly, and Momsandy knew they should have stopped ages ago  the panda ɛˢˡ”  19:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - The cause needs to be supported. Also, it was not closed, as stated by the "closer" - 'no consensus' was reached. Also, @DangerousPanda, it's not a request - it's a move review 173.48.149.83 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't moved before, therefore it's not a move review. Just because I call a dog a "cat", that does not mean it's a cat  the panda ɛˢˡ”  19:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @DangerousPanda, you seemed supportive towards the move on Wonder Pets! until you thought Momsandy was "disruptively" moving things around and you got angry. In my opinion, you seem biased based on the user who started the move request, not the topic itself. It also seems to me that you are, in a way, intentionally harassing this MomSandy user for no good reason. I feel that you should stay out of this discussion, as your posts are always negative and, frankly, insulting towards this user. 173.48.149.83 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If somebody closes a discussion, it's closed, and the above discussion certainly was. Discussions can be, and frequently are, closed as no consensus. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly as Aussie says. "No consensus" in AFD's and move discussions means "there is currently no consensus to take specific action at this time".  It does NOT mean "we couldn't decide, try again" - "no consensus" IS a valid community decision.  the panda ɛˢˡ”  19:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @EatsShootsAndLeaves - MomSandy isn't doing anything wrong - "consensus" was never reached and the discussion leader should have been notified before it was closed for no reason. You are acting like someone who should be blocked right now for being so harsh to Momsandy - I have reviewed the user's edit history and they are all good-faith. It appears that Momsandy is just a big fan of "Wonder Pets!" and wants the title to be spelled according to all official sources instead of the current, incorrect spelling. Also, the user does not seem to have much experience talking to other users on Wikipedia, and your actions towards Momsandy fall under the US cyberbullying identification methods. I am assuming Momsandy is likely younger than you; if you were speaking to this person in real life, would you act so churlishly? Remember the topic - the correctly spelled title - and not your anger towards the user. 173.48.149.83 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, this AussieLegend person seems to be editing at the exact same moments as Panda - are you sure there's no sockpuppeting or talking-to-a-friend-and-telling-them-what-to-say involved here? 173.48.149.83 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One could ask the very same question of an IP that edits only when registered editor is nowhere to be seen. If you have concerns, please open an SPI report. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Something's starting to smell fishy to me as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: Although signed as Momsandy, the edits above are currently associated with the user account of User:Libramedia. They do not appear in the contribution history of User:Momsandy. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following is a closed 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Wonder Pets → Wonder Pets! – Like fellow TV show articles with their titles ending in an exclamation mark (Yo Gabba Gabba!, All Grown Up!, Teen Titans Go!, etc.), Wikipedia needs to use the correct title so that our professionalism is not challenged. The exclamation mark is used on the show's official site, official Facebook page, and various other sites such as TV.com. The logo also includes the mark. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squiddaddy (talk • contribs) 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: The show needs to be treated like the other exclamation mark endings, and I wouldn't want people saying that Wikipedia is an improper source because we use an incorrect name. Squiddaddy (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree, all Wikipedia pages should be named correctly and this one is no exception. Per MOS:TM, it is also the trademark used by its creators. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Wikipedia does use the mark in these cases. It is needed. Julian &#38; Juan - From Julian Spencer (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify this comment, ? This sounds like a circular argument. Wikipedia should use an exclamation mark because Wikipedia uses exclamation marks? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that, to maintain a sense of order when naming pages, we should name all pages using an exclamation mark in their title accordingly. Julian &#38; Juan - From Julian Spencer (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Administrator's comment: asked two of the other current support !votes to weigh in. They've already been warned about canvassing, so I'm not going to close the RM yet so long as it doesn't continue. However, it will be taken into consideration in the closing.--Cúchullain t/ c  16:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: For the same reasons as the other supporters. Momsandy (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific, please? Consensus isn't a vote. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just that there's not much more to say - I completely agree with the other supporters, and they've covered mostly everything there is to say. Nickelodeon itself asks that the mark be used when using it on other sites, such as this one, on the original revision of their Terms of Use when describing if you can use their titles. Momsandy (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I will go even farther and present that Wikipedia's consistency in article titles article states that if other articles use a format (using the mark in this case), this one needs to as well. Since that is a Wikipedia rule, I might say that causes the move to be necessary. Please understand that Wikipedia's articles should be named as they are, and might I say that no other site has the title as simply, "Wonder Pets" aside from Wikipedia. Sorry if this is confusing, I tried to make it clear but I've been away from Wikipedia for a while. Momsandy (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Momsandy, Consistency in article titles isn't a Wikipedia rule, it is an essay that describes content found at the policy page WP:AT. On that page, we find a reference to Invader ZIM of all things, at WP:TITLETM. "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." So the metric for inclusion of the exclamation, is if the trademarked spelling is more commonly used by publications that are NOT Nickelodeon. Respectfully, I don't quite understand the relevance of the Nick.com terms and conditions, since we are not bound by their unilateral rules. Also I don't see any mention of exclamation marks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, and that indicates that the exclamation mark should be used here, as the exclamation mark is used on TV.com, Wikia, etc. (referencing your statement "the trademarked spelling is more commonly used by publications that are not Nickelodeon") - I hope you understand now, but regarding the Nickelodeon terms, it states in the original revision that their titles should be written as they are so that their trademark can be referenced if needed. Thanks! Momsandy (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither TV.com nor Wikia would be the sorts of sites we would use to determine this as they are both user contributed and there is no presumption of editorial oversight. Especially with Wikia. We should instead be using reliable sources like The LA Times or Deadline or Variety or... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like Wonder Pets! is on Common Sense Media with the exclamation mark, an official source, as well as TV Guide. I would like to add that TV.com does have a process of how titles get added - they have to be submitted by the creator of the content or from a certified television guide, only the reviews and ratings are user-submitted. Thanks! Momsandy (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thus far I haven't seen a compelling reason for a move. The dominant arguments are "other stuff exists" and that an exclamation exists in the logo. Where in the various Manuals of style is it established that the logo should determine the article's title? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:TM, since it frequently appears in books w/o the bang. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, most books based on the series do include the mark - check Amazon, every book I've seen has it. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I should add that IMDb uses the mark: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0775407/ to see. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IMDb would not be considered a reliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per MOS:TM. To quote the guideline in question: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, [or] are included purely for decoration". The exclamation mark definitely qualifies under this category, therefore, I oppose the move. Luthien22 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The guideline is clear, in fact this seems to be exactly the sort of decision it was intended to address. Therefore it is the move proponents' job to show why the guideline  should not apply, and no case has been made. Andrewa (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:TM and points made by Andrewa and Dicklyon. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Although signed as Momsandy, the edits above are currently associated with the user account of User:Libramedia. They do not appear in the contribution history of User:Momsandy. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
If this move proceeds, then obviously consensus has changed regarding MOS:TM and it needs to be reviewed in the light of this new consensus. If it does not, then the proponents should continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. See particularly Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Andrewa (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

On reflection I've suggested a possible change to the guideline. Please comment there. Note however that this guideline is subject to discretionary sanctions. I recommend only experienced hands actually edit the guideline, to be safe. Propose changes on the talk page instead, and let the old hands make the changes if consensus can be reached. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move 8 September 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: Moved L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Wonder Pets → Wonder Pets! – Show's name ends with an exclamation point 2601:584:100:E310:2186:7B05:9309:8DF7 (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support! Randy Kryn (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, not only on the basis of the show's title card, but also on the basis that secondary sourcing (e.g. LA Times, Variety) refer to the series as Wonder Pets! at least some of the time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is inconsistency in the independent sources, why should Wikipedia prefer to include the exclamation mark? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the title card is the preeminent source on the subject, and indicates how the show's makers wanted the show titled. For things like TV series, how the producer/showrrunner/network intents the TV show to be titled, etc. should always be given extra weight. If secondary sources then at least partially support that, then it's "case closed" IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: That seems contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Per such guidelines and policies as WP:TITLETM and MOS:TM and WP:ALLCAPS, Wikipedia has its own guidelines. Wikipedia also prefers to primarily consider independent reliable sources (not self-published or affiliated promotional sources). This is especially the case for matters of decorative styling. I further note that the article has been the subject of two prior move requests for the same suggested move. Those two proposals were not successful, and I see no evidence that the situation has changed, and therefore I see no good reason to reopen the discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, another example of Wikipedia naval gazing – both primary and secondary sources use the proposed titling, but let's just ignore that and follow our insular MOS guidelines over available sourcing, and not because it's "better" but because we "can". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. I hate to bring up the cheesy old other stuff exists argument, but other items have survived the style rules on excitable titles, like this or this or this. And that's because their official titles really are excitable. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - The nominator is correct. It appears that some media sources forget the exclamation point when discussing the show, but evidence indicates that it's an official part of the title. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt that the lack of an exclamation mark in some reliable independent sources is an indication that they "forgot" to include it. More likely it is that they considered the unusual punctuation to be an undignified vanity styling used for promotional purposes. Wikipedia also has guidelines and policies such as MOS:TM and WP:TITLETM that may indicate that the exclamation mark should not be included. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In this comment and your other comment above, you appear to be saying that Wikipedia should be as inconsistent as the media sources that have covered the show. If so, that's not a convincing argument about whether or not the show's official title has an exclamation point or not. It does, and so should our article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Precisely the opposite. Rather than exhibiting the random inconsistencies that are found in sources, Wikipedia should strive to have greater consistency, by following its own WP:Manual of Style and other guidelines and policies. This includes avoiding the use of the sort of promotional styling that is often followed in self-published "official" sources (e.g., all-caps and other special uses of letter case and strange punctuation that are designed to make the name of a topic stand out from the crowd and appear more unique or important or interesting). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:TITLETM "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." Basically we ignore anything published by Viacom, the trademark owner, and go with standard text formatting unless we can demonstrate the punctuation mark is the most common usage. It looks like it isn't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: per the precedent set with Mario Is Missing!. ToThAc (talk) 02:00, 16 September 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.