Talk:Entropy: Zero 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Entropy : Zero 2)

Requested move 13 April 2024[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: page moved. ~ A412 talk! 17:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Entropy : Zero 2Entropy: Zero 2 – Contested WP:COMMONNAME move. The game is universally referred to as Entropy: Zero 2 (without the stylized spacing) by RS, and by this article's own sourcing: PC Gamer, PCGamesN, TheGamer, GameRant, NME. Per WP:OFFICIALNAME, we should use the name sources use to refer to the game, not a "correct" or "official" name. ~ A412 talk! 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IDKFA-93: courtesy ping ~ A412 talk! 16:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and for the links to the article title policies (this is my first time actually creating an article from scratch and I wasn't entirely aware of them, apologies if my actions seemed disruptive).
After taking a look through the bullet points, I'm no longer entirely opposed to re-moving the article to "Entropy: Zero 2"; but if this happens, do you think it would be best to revise the contents of the article to use the "Entropy: Zero 2" name, or should the stylized ones be used instead? IDKFA-93 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The typical style is to use the "common name" throughout while acknowledging the stylized name: for example Insane 2: Insane 2 (stylized as In2ane) or Nier: Automata: Nier: Automata (stylized as NieR:Automata). ~ A412 talk! 17:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought; I've gone ahead and made the appropriate adjustments and moved the article. Apologies again if my previous actions seemed disruptive and unneeded. IDKFA-93 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think your actions were disruptive, I think this is a perfect example of of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. ~ A412 talk! 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.