Talk:Complete Review

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creator notes edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just created this article.

I have no connection with the website or its creator. I am an interested reader who saw the sites 10th anniversary as a good time to create a WP article.
The site is very popular and well known. For example many Wikipedia articles link to it: [1] - all of these need to be wiki-linked now that there is article.

--Green Cardamom (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the site merits inclusion in WP. In the interests of clarity, I've made a few syntactical changes, which I hope you won't find obnoxious. I have also corrected some punctuation. Macphysto (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Though short, this is a great article; thanks for creating it! Shreevatsa (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 4 July 2017 edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

complete review → Complete Review – Per MOS:TM and MOS:TITLES. Wikipedia does not attempt to immitate cutesy all-lower-case or ALL-UPPER-CASE stylization in logos. (See Sony not "SONY", eBay not "ebay", etc.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Support as even the website itself is inconsistent in the use of lowercase. There is significant use of Complete Review in RS like NY Times, Time Magazine, and most of the other sources listed in the article to justify a claim for WP:COMMONNAME. However, I think the lead should remain "complete review is a literary website...", or at the very least state that it is "(stylized as complete review)" —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support proper noun. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support (MOS:CT / WP:TITLETM / MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

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.

Add topic