Talk:Tom Thumb (film)

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. Number 57 12:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Don't lie. It's not "Back to status quo" at all. From 24 November 2006‎ to September 2013‎ it was lower case: that's the status quo. Not every guide tells us to ignore capitalisation, which is why we have articles on iTunes, eBay, IMAX and a host of others that have non-standard capitalisation. WP:TM is a non-starter (it's not a tm, it’s a film title, just in case you hadn't noticed). - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read

talk) 10:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict) (again) I did. And if we have flexibility for some articles, then we can have it for more than just those two, without stretching the brain too much. There is no need for such a limited thinking pattern when it comes to matters like this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The lower case is pure marketing. I've never seen it used when referring to the film elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure about that? - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're just going to search for examples then the BFI seem happy with title case. That might be because it is their house style to use it. When it comes to composition titles and the like, it is our house style to use title case also, and this is what we follow. We do not take our capitalisation from the original marketing material or from the house styles of other publications. --

talk) 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you going to bludgeon every post of mine? That would be rather hugely tedious. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per my reasons above. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per
  MOS:TM since the article title does not need to be stylized, and there appear to be numerous reliable sources that accept writing it as "Tom Thumb". It is simple to write "Tom Thumb (stylized as tom thumb)" and to proceed with writing Tom Thumb as such in the article body. It looks like lowercase-title films avoid using lowercase on Wikipedia: Bananas (film), Better Off Dead (film), I Am Sam, and Arthur (1981 film). I believe we also render uppercase-title films as title case, e.g., Gattaca. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nom Red Slash 20:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As noted by
  Perception. I see no compelling reason to make an exception here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nom. Guidelines are clear on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per MOS:TM, but isn't there another Tom Thumb (1972 film) in Google Books? Michel Boisrond and Charles Perrault's Le Petit Poucet with Marie Laforêt, Jean-Pierre Marielle, Jean-Luc Bideau... In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that article is ever created, then we can rename this to

talk) 13:49, 24 February 2015 (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.