Talk:Do You Want More?!!!??!

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 02:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Do You Want More?!!!??! → Do You Want More? — Relisted. No clear consensus so far whether we want the title to end with ?, ?!, or ?!!!??!. Please indicate your opinion on each of those. Ucucha 16:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove the name styling (WP:MUSTARD). The WP:COMMONNAME contains all the punctuation but a name change would appear to make more sense for a search preservative presentation. —Labattblueboy (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• What is a "search preservative"? Wikkitywack (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. my guess is I meant to say presentation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: This is the proper title and everything (Do You Want More, Do You Want More?, etc.) redirects here - so there's no problem. And there's no conflict with WP:MOS - because this is a special case that transcends normal grammatical concerns (besides, Do You Want More? - with just a single question mark - changes the frantic tenor of the title Do You Want More?!!!??! significantly.) Wikkitywack (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though consider using ?! rather than simply ?. The rest amounts to stylized typography, which we frown upon. (Anyone that says "That's not an X" or some variant thereof is missing the point entirely). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 81.111.114.131 - I appreciate the suggestion but "Do You Want More?!" is incorrect (look at the album cover, spine, interior, major review websites, etc.) and I see nothing on WP:MOSTM that "frowns upon" use of proper exclamation. And it is indeed proper exclamation. ?! = your choice, ?!!!??! = The Roots choice, and therefore the correct choice. Again, Do You Want More & Do You Want More? are redirects to this page. Do You Want More?! is also a roundabout way to get to it. If there comes a day when another album/song/whatever is called Do You Want More? (a quite common phrase), the current page title is perfect as the extra marks make it distinctively The Roots album. So, in addition to my previous points, the current title will actually save us a hassle in the future. Wikkitywack (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

    You must have missed "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"" and "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration [...]". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

    The first quote has to do with capitalization, not punctuation, and, although I disagree with one of the examples (KISS), this is not relevant to the issue at hand. As to the second, I'd say it's more than "purely for decoration". Surely Do You Want More? is quite different than Do You Want More?!!!??! - in fact, I would argue that the meaning (and thus the pronunciation) is very different due to the punctuation. One question mark denotes a simple question, ?!!!??! denotes frantic incredulity (see my Strongly Oppose comment above) Wikkitywack (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Btw, this is an album where every major review site I have seen calls it Do You Want More?!!!??! - with full punctuation. Wikkitywack (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, no debate that the common name contains the punctuation. My argument was on a styling basis.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This is an interesting case. I've been around for a lot of the development and continuation of WP:MOSTM, and these keep cropping up. I'd like to look at similar cases, and see which principles were invoked there. I'm trying to remember another article with a titling issue comparable to this one, and if I think of one later, I'll post back here.

  Without looking at other cases, my inclination is to say that COMMONNAME is closer to the spirit of our naming policies than MOSTM is. The argument supporting MOSTM (one of our least-liked naming conventions) is that scholarly and otherwise reliable sources tend to standardize typography and capitalization, to an extent. Most of standard written English has us listening to "Korn" on our "iPod". Ultimately, we're source-based, and Wikkitywack's citing "every major review site" above gets my attention. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:56, 23 February 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Do You Want More?!!!??!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726122820/http://www.theroots.com/do-you-want-more/ to http://www.theroots.com/do-you-want-more/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)