Jump to content

Talk:B.A.P.S.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger

[edit]

Requested move 19 August 2019

[edit]
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 to B.A.P.S. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 02:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


B*A*P*SB.A.P.S – I believe the title should have periods instead of asterisks. Asterisks are not used on the poster, and "B.A.P.S" is used in publications during the film's theatrical release (examples: 12345). I do see some publications use the asterisks version, like 1 and 2, but they are more recent and could be influenced by this Wikipedia title. Thank you in advance for any comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BarrelProof: Since I doubt either move would be considered controversial, I am wondering if I can close this discussion and just move the page. I think using "B.A.P.S." should be fine as the current article it is redirected towards does not use this acronym with dots. Just wanted to ping you to get your opinion about it. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to be conservative and wait. This will probably be closed quickly anyway, as it has been open for a full week. My suggestion at this point is for it to be moved to B.A.P.S. without worrying about Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, since we don't have any indication that the name of the religious organization is commonly styled using dots. It can always be moved again later if that turns out to be a problem, and a quick web search does not indicate a problem. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, and it is best to err on the side of caution. That sounds like the best and most appropriate course of action. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2019 (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.