This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 back to The Opposition with Jordan Klepper. Clearly there was no consensus for the initial bold move so we revert to the status quo. If anything, the discussions leans in favour of that title anyway. No prejudice against revisiting this in a few months when we might have a clearer idea of whether "w/" has caught on enough to be the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor is free to start his or her own RM focused on changing (w/ → with) or to request reversion of an undiscussed move, but this ongoing RM has already received two clear "support" votes for "w/" and one nuanced vote willing to accept either "w/" or "with", but still voting "support". Therefore, this RM cannot be characterized as "a fake discussion". —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)06:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "with" link you provided shows 2,160 results and the "w/" link shows 1,700 results. That's a measly difference of 460 results, which would not make it "nearly twice as common". Also, as the show progresses billed with the abbreviated title more and more news articles will refer to it as such. Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certain aspects of this topic are reminiscent of those discussed in the recently-concluded unsuccessful nomination Good Night, and Good Luck → Good Night, and Good Luck. at Talk:Good Night, and Good Luck#Requested move 21 September 2017. One of the points raised there was that "Many films uppercase their entire titles or put the initial letter of every word in the title in either upper case or lower case, thus negating stylistic arguments regarding those specific matters". As far as the present nomination is concerned, however, the governing guideline is MOS:CT which specifies that "the words that are not capitalized (unless they are the first or last word of the title) are: Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (as, in, of, on, to, for, from, like, over, with, etc.)" —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)05:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to old title, The Opposition with Jordan Klepper. Given that sources are split on whether they use "with" or "w/", it is clear that the "w/" notation is just a styling, similar to Macy*s. Therefore per MOS:CT we should go with our house style for this, which is to spell out "with" in full, with lower case w. — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common everyday abbreviation of the word. It is not an unusual styling. It is in no way remotely similar to replacing and apostrophe with an asterisk. Grapesoda22 (✉) 20:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to "with" per above. More common spelling, plus argument "as the show progresses billed with the abbreviated title more and more news articles will refer to it as such" is purely speculative. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2017 (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.
