Talk:...And It's Deep Too!

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Fair use rationale for Image:Example0.jpg

Image:Example0.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:...And It's Deep Too!.jpg

Image:...And It's Deep Too!.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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: not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

…And It's Deep Too! → ...And It's Deep Too! The Complete Warner Bros. Recordings (1968–1992) –

actual name, WP:ELLIPSIS —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not per the album cover, or the artist's website.[1] Apteva (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too long. Even if there is another album with same name, using the proposed name won't solve anything. --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "...And It's Deep Too!" per MOS:TM avoid special characters, specifically, the unicoded ellipsis, and special unicode apostrophe. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is an article title, not, as WP:ELLIPSIS states, "an omission of material from quoted text", thus WP:COMMONNAME should apply. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2013 (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.

Suggested 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. 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 per request. Favonian (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

…And It's Deep Too! → ...And It's Deep Too! – replace unicoded typography with standard text per MOS:TM (yes, the two titles are not the same, the current title uses special unicode characters, while the proposed title uses plain characters. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support - it should be three separate dots, the same as what we have in ...Baby One More Time (song) for example werldwayd (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and suggest speedy close. No reason to go against the recommendation at WP:MOS (see MOS:ELLIPSIS there). Such a typographic fix is absolutely routine. Noetica^Tea? 01:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:...And It's Deep Too!/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Reassessed as stub class== In line with the project quality scale, this needs to have a minimal list of performance/production credits adding to get beyond stub class. Thanks Papa November 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)