Talk:Republic?

Fair use rationale for Image:Republic cover.jpg

Image:Republic cover.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 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 July 2019

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 — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Republic? (album) → Republic? – Unnecessary disambiguation. Geolodus (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geolodus: Is the punctuation mark ('?') alone, enough disambiguation from republic? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that it was, since the base page name already redirects here, and I don't see anything else named "Republic?" on Republic (disambiguation). Confusion may be possible, but it's not ambiguous. Geolodus (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not consistent in sources, is this Republic? (Sheavy album) even notable? cf Republic (New Order album) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi:, could you elaborate on what you mean by "not consistent in sources"? The sources linked in the article's references seem to use the question mark consistently. Colin M (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:PRECISION there doesn't seem to be any risk of confusion with the government entity but I have added a distinguish template on both albums. I don't see how anyone would be looking for (or be confused/astonished) to find this album when searching with a "?". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I tried to carry out the technical request, but found that [1] links to Republic, not Republic?. Thus, external links would need to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic%3F to ensure the correct target. Using the (album) disambiguation makes it easier to find from the dab page. --DannyS712 (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? If one searches for or is linked to Republic?, which the majority do instead of manually typing in URLs, they should end up at the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic%3F anyway, which they don't have to be a tech genius to then copy. (Do question marks really make it impossible to move pages correctly?) As for your second argument, making the article easier to find on a disambiguation page is not a particularly strong one for disambiguation which is otherwise not necessary. Geolodus (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just created User:Geolodus/? (test) and moved it to User:Geolodus/?, confirming that question marks are indeed not problematic when moving pages. Geolodus (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Geolodus: true, but going to [2] does not lead to that page, which is the point I was making --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is that even a reason to oppose this move in the first place? Geolodus (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. (Yeah, it might not be notable, but that's not our department.) Colin M (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The question mark makes the title unambiguous and the parenthetical unnecessary. Keep the hatnote, though I would probably link to Republic (disambiguation). PC78 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. This simply reverses a redirect. There is nothing else on WP using the precise title. Station1 (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Terminal punctuation is TOOSMALL a SMALLDETAIL. In many applications, terminal punctuation is stripped, sending the user to Republic. Prefer Republic? (Sheavy). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Republic" is not a common question, or a meaningful question at all absent some context, so there's no reason to think users would use a question mark to search for anything else at Republic (disambiguation). Let's take the WP:NATURAL disambiguation we've been given here. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if Love?, a more popular term and page, has not created problems in 8 years, this random term won't do. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:42, 27 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.