Talk:TNA Impact!/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for Comment: Impact! or iMPACT!

This is a dispute about whether Impact! or iMPACT! should be used as the article name and in the article itself. 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Per MOS:TM for trademarks to follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. Aaru Bui ^DII 09:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• The use of "iMPACT!" in this article borders on unreadability, clearly violates the style consensus established in WP:MOSTM, and is in general an embarrassment to this project. —ptk✰fgs 19:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• MOS doesn't apply here, one reason being that it concerns titles in all capitals. TJ Spyke 09:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• iMPACT! is the official way TNA spells the name of the show. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• "Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized." Capitals is plural, meaning more than one, so iMPACT! falls under that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inuyasha73036 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikipedia discourages using strange ways of capitalization in article names. That is why RAW was moved to Raw. It is the same here. Impact should be used over iMPACT. 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  Exactly. Trying to find a loophole because of a guideline that talks about internal capitals is Wikilawyering - we don't do loopholes here. The spirit of the rule is precisely what The Hybrid has stated here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reliance on the quote used by Inuyasha above (about "internal capitals") is misplaced. It appears to be accounting for the use of CamelCase, which WP:MOSTM says is a "judgment call." "iMPACT!" is more like "REALTOR(TM)," which WP:MOSTM specifically says should be avoided. Recent discussion of a similar issue at Talk:Glock may be helpful. PubliusFL 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• iMPACT! is always referred to as that not Impact. Davnel03 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and our Manual of Style says we always use standard rules of English for capitalization. It's not like we're picking on Impact!; it's the same rule we use across the wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The MOS is just a guideline though, and it says exceptions are allowed. TJ Spyke 08:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure exceptions are allowed. Anything's allowed, but that doesn't mean it's supported by consensus, so there's no guarantee that it'll stick. You're allowed to put the page at an eccentrically formatted title, and people are allowed to put it back. Following the spirit of the guideline is the best way to keep back-and-forth moves from happening, because that's what's supported by consensus. We can certainly go to WP:MOSTM, to the talk page, and ask for people's opinions, and we can keep watching this RfC, and we can ask at some appropriate Village pump, and everything. It's just that what I've seen broadly supported, so far, is that we don't allow trademark holders to dictate... etc, etc; you've heard it by now. That may change, and I guess it's discussions like this that'll let us know when and if that happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been a supporter of moving pages to standard capitalization before, but I do feel strongly that iMPACT should be one of the exceptions. Sorry for the short reply, but I am about to go to bed. TJ Spyke 11:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, RAW was moved to Raw previously because of this rule, and iMPACT! cannot be exempt from it. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the same as RAW. TJ Spyke 20:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the same principle, namely that we use standard English rules for capitalization, rather than letting trademark holders dictate eccentric capitalizations to us. This is the same principle that's applied to dozens of pages that I've seen. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The circumstances surrounding this do not matter. The same rule applies to this page as did to Raw. 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TJ. This is NOT the same as Raw. WWE uses the spelling "Raw" when refering the show. On the other hand, I have yet to see iMPACT! spelled any other way by TNA. Along with the "second captalized letter" rule, the article should be reverted back. Peace Mshake3 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything you just said is against Wikipedia policy. How the company spells it is irrelevant. We use standard English spelling on Wikipedia, period. 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

iPod Mshake3 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC) And in addition, how is it against policy when I just cited one (second captalized letters)? Is this going to come down to follow this policy and ignore the other?Mshake3 04:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are two quotes from WP:MOSTM:

"avoid: REALTOR® instead, use: Realtor"; and

"Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgement call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable"

The examples you cite fall under the second quote -- use of CamelCase. This article falls under the first quote -- iMPACT! is more like REALTOR® than iPod. iMPACT! does not reflect general usage (most hits in Google News, for example, just say "Impact") and does not make the term more readable. Compare recent discussion on Talk:Glock, where consensus was that "Glock" is correct on Wikipedia, despite the fact that the company refers to itself as "GLOCK." PubliusFL 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to move IPod to Ipod, but it has a page history, so I can't do it. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, iPod and eBay are in the right place, per WP:MOSTM#Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter. The difference is this: "iPod" is the word "Pod" with a lower-case 'i' prefixed to the front. Same with "eBay". On the other hand, "iMPACT" isn't the word (or acronym) "MPACT" with an 'i' stuck on the front; it's the word "Impact" capitalized eccentrically. The case with "iMPACT!" is more like a combination of initial lowercase letter and all-caps word, both of which are discouraged.

It's fair to ask why there's an exception for iPod and eBay, and I think it's because they're basically camel-case with a one-letter first word, and "IPod" would be no less eccentric than "iPod", with the disadvantage of being incorrect.

The point is really not about technicalities like this, however fun their hairs may be to split. The spirit of having any such guideline is that we aren't going to let everybody's marketing department dictate to us that their product's name has to be CaPiTaLiZeD lIkE tHiS, and maybe in Courier New font with little ♥ ♦ stars and hearts ♦ ♥ around it. It's not about spelling: we'll spell stuff just the way the trademark holder spells it, so we don't have an article about the band at Lincoln Park (band). At capitalization and other funny stuff however, we draw the line, and say we're going to typeset all our English as English, and not as ad copy; thus, we don't have an article at LIИKIИ PARK, or even LINKIN PARK. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

When I made the same argument that that's they way TNA spells it, it was brought to my attention (and I agreed) that this isn't an issue of spelling. iMPACT! and Impact! spell it the same exact way. It's a matter of stylized typography, and as mentioned already, "we use standard english rules for capitilization on Wikipedia rather than letting trademark holders dictate eccentric capitializations to us". To be honest, if there were a wrestling show that a company styilized like WREsTliNG sHow would we name the articled that way? Doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Yes, this means I've changed my opinion, and yes, I still think this argument is getting a tad ridiculous. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 02:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think what has been the main reasonable supporting argument for iMPACT! would be the exception for "lowercased trademarks with internal capitals" and I don't think this argument could be solved unless this somewhat vague rule has been clarified as to whether it only applies to one-letter prefixes. MoS:TM as it currently is written would support iMPACT!. Wikipedians' interpretation of this rule doesn't seem to be convincing. We'll need to have a consensus on the MoS:TM discussion page to change the guideline. An article that better relates to this one would be deviantART. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  I've been chatting over at WT:MOSTM#Suggested revision for clarity of mixed internal capitalization, and from that conversation, I've come to think it's really not about how many letters are prefixed, nor about how many internal capitals the word has. The distinction is this: with CamelCase words, and also with "iPod" and "eBay", the capitalization serves a semantic function - it breaks the word into meaningfully separate parts. We (correctly) read "iPod" as "i" + "Pod".

  With cases such as "deviantART" and "iMPACT!", the capitalization isn't functional, in the sense of parsing the word for us, but it's purely stylistic, and done to make the trademark more interesting and memorable. Actually, "deviantART" does use capitalization to separate semantically distinct parts of the name, but it does it in an eccentric way. It's certainly not the case that we're supposed to understand "iMPACT!" as "i" + "MPACT!", are we? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly, just like I've been saying here repeatedly. Per WP:MOSTM, CamelCase is a judgment call (WHEN it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable), but aberrant capitalizations like "REALTOR®" are to be avoided. PubliusFL 02:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• You've hit the nail on the head. "iMPACT!" is merely a more creative (and annoying) variant on "REALTOR®". As GTBacchus notes, the capitalization is purely stylistic and does not impart any semantic information. We should write it in a normal, readable way: "TNA Impact". —ptk✰fgs 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dismissive comments such as labeling a style that's obviously in at least minority usage "annoying" and an "embarrassment" are not conducive to building consensus. In any case, I agree that the spirit of the guideline (not "rule") points to adopting 'Impact!'. Whether or not it's a good idea to apply it in this case I'll leave to those more familiar with way the program is referred to in common usage. Sighrik 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agreed on iMPACT! for use in the article as a compromise, I support using standard English in the article per Wiki guidelines. It is pretty much established that there aren't grounds for an exception to be made, and an overall consensus seems to have been established for following the guidelines, so I think that the problem is solved. -- The Hybrid 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Which still bears the question whether that consensus will be heeded by all regular contributors to this and related articles. On a side note, I do not believe it to be a good idea to compromise with a party that is primarily motivated by personal (even self-admitted) fandom, which is an inherently NPOV-incompatible approach to Wikipedia editing. - Cyrus XIII 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If they change the article against consensus, then we can call it vandalism. As far as my compromise goes, no one else was contributing to the conversation but us, and Raw was in this style. Two people don't make a consensus; therefore, we couldn't just walk over to Raw and change it, so we followed the style that Raw uses. Peace, -- The Hybrid 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a conversation, not a discussion. Everyone else had, for the most part already moved on, because there was nothing left to discuss. What happened here before the article was protected and what still happens at the WWE Raw article is nothing but an ongoing disregard of consensus, driven by a select few of editors who are either unwilling or incapable of separating personal preferences from considerations of what would be best for Wikipedia. I would not go as far as calling this vandalism but it certainly qualifies as disruptive as opposed to productive. And apparently the respective parties have no intent to alter their current course of action.[1] - Cyrus XIII 23:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since this is an official guideline supported by consensus, and consensus is a policy, we have every right to call it vandalism, and I intend to do so. Now, I shall report the results of this discussion to WP:PW. Peace, -- The Hybrid 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid's right you cannot go against policy. Big Boss 0 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy against using iMPACT. Everyone has moved on because it was agreed for the article to be at iMPACT, but then a vandal moved it anyways. I will accept a compromise of the article name being at Impact!, but the actual use in articles as iMPACT!. TJ Spyke 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus overruled the compromise, so it will be spelled Impact! in the articles. -- The Hybrid 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? You can't have a conensus with 3 people, and the previous discussions had it being left at iMPACT. There is no policy or guideline saying that iMPACT is wrong. TJ Spyke 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I count 8 people. -- The Hybrid 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSTM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." Either WP:MOSTM is not a guideline, or "iMPACT" follows "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules," or your statement that "there is no policy or guideline saying that iMPACT is wrong" is incorrect. Which do you believe to be the case? PubliusFL 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

From the same page: "Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized". It does not say that ONLY the second letter can be capitalized. TJ Spyke 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Wikilawyering has already been addressed. That was meant for cases like iPod and eBay. -- The Hybrid 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And the issue wasn't solved. So iMPACT is technically acceptable. TJ Spyke 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So, ignoring the continued use of Wikilawyering, we are back to the fact that one of us can't count. -- The Hybrid 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "second letter" quote only addresses the propriety of capitalizing the second letter. You're right that it "does not say that ONLY the second letter can be capitalized." To figure out what to do with subsequent letters, we have to look at the rest of MOSTM. And the rest of MOSTM says to follow "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules," with a "judgment call" exception for CamelCase. We're not talking about CamelCase here, so unless you are suggesting a format of "iMpact!" you'll have to find something else to excuse it from the language I quoted. PubliusFL 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out that the same page he was using to support his case could also be used against him. TJ Spyke 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By "him" do you mean me? Because I'm the one who quoted MOSTM above. And I just showed you why the page can't logically be used against me. PubliusFL 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And the page can't logically be used against me. TJ Spyke 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Premise: MOSTM says to "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." Premise: "iMPACT!" does not follow "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." Conclusion: Therefore, "iMPACT!" violates MOSTM. That, my friend, is logic. Either show which of the premises is flawed, or show how the conclusion is a non sequitur, or drop the claim that the guideline can't logically be used against you. PubliusFL 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have shown how the page can support me. It looks like the guideline contradicts each other since one part of it clearly says iMPACT is acceptable while another could be interpeted as opposing it. TJ Spyke 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing contradictory, as I have shown. Everything in the guideline is capable of a harmonious reading, as I have also shown. The fact that your reading of one part of the guideline leads to contradiction with other parts of the guideline is a very strong indication that your reading is incorrect. PubliusFL 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop going back and forth, it's not just my reading. It clearly supports iMPACT. TJ Spyke 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a question for you. MOSTM plainly says not to use "REALTOR," even though that's the styling preferred by the trademark holder, and to use normal capitalization rules instead. If the National Association of Realtors decided to change their preferred style to "rEALTOR," is it your position that, although "REALTOR" is unacceptable, "rEALTOR" would be acceptable? What sense does that make? And what's the difference between that hypothetical and this situation? PubliusFL 01:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, maybe after a few years (like iMPACT has been using it for almost 3 years). If it was most common, then yes. TJ Spyke 01:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And what if it's not most common? I just reviewed the first 100 results from a search of Google News, and "TNA Impact" is used more frequently than "TNA iMPACT" by about three to one. Google Books give one use of "TNA Impact" and one use of "TNA iMpact" (which is, interestingly, the capitalization that would be justified by your "second letter" quote). Zero results for "TNA iMPACT." So, a review of the most reliable and verifiable sources shows that "TNA Impact" is the most commonly used name of the program. Incidentally, TNA Impact usually appears without the exclamation point, just like MOSTM suggests. PubliusFL 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move

• It should also be pointed out that Chris Cheese Wine moved the articles even though the move request failed. TJ Spyke 02:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave where the article is currently out of this discussion. --Aaru Bui ^DII 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make that clear, since it seems like vandalism to me. TJ Spyke 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So we revert a good edit for the reason that he made the edit? Won't we just have to move it back eventually anyway so the article is within policy? That seems counter-productive to me. 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good edit? Moving a page only hours after a move request failed? TJ Spyke 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that he meant it to be good; however, it was a move that would have needed to take place eventually. Therefore, it was a good edit independant of his motives. 声援 -- The Hybrid

Any edit made with the intent of improving the encyclopedia is never regarded as vandalism here; read the definition of the word. Chris moved the page to a title that he believes to be correct, so it can't be vandalism. I think it would have been better to do the RFC first, and then move when it becomes clear that the broad consensus is for standard rules of English. That said, what's done is done, and the page is in the right place now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a bad faith edit though. He knew the move request failed, but he went ahead and did it anyways. That could still be considered vandalism though. TJ Spyke 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Read our definition of the word vandalism. He moved the page because he felt the move request was closed improperly. Vandalism is when someone tries to make the encyclopedia worse. Chris was trying to make it better. Big difference. Vandalism is like when someone adds random obscenities, or information that they know to be inaccurate, or blanks pages, or replaces pages with pictures of penises or something. This is a naming dispute, and everybody is acting in good faith as far as I can see. Insisting that someone was acting in bad faith is an unproductive train of thought - the question is whether or not we have broad consensus for applying standard rules of capitalization to trademarks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving the page even though a move request had just failed hours before? Then editing the page so it couldn't be moved back? Those were bad edits, regardless of his intention. I still think they should be moved back while this is being discussed. TJ Spyke 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's fine for you to disagree with what he did, or to say that it was a crummy way to pursue a naming dispute. It simply isn't "vandalism". As for moving the page back while we discuss it, we pretty much don't do purely procedural moves. The trick in a dispute is to stop moving the page until we arrive at a decision. We don't want to move the page back only to move it again in a day or two. The point is to not clutter the edit history with back and forth moves. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that I couldn't care less anymore whether the article was TNA iMPACT!, TNA Impact!, or something like TnA ImPAcT!!!!, quite honestly I think we're wasting to much time on this and satisfying our pride in getting the last word when we should be concentrating on bigger issues in WP:PW. Just my opinion. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 03:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that, let's not have this turn into a war over semantics when there is plenty of actual improvements to make on WP:PW guys and gals MPJ-DK 08:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty much solved, and this stuff is actually pretty important. Anything that affects any one of the big 4 (RAW, Smackdown!, ECW, and iMPACT!) requires attention from a fair number of people. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 08:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved TNA Impact! (video game), which I believe was the only page with "Impact!" in the title still at the non-standard capitalization. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you do that? All the iMPACT pages shouldbe at iMPACT, and the Whiner's moves should be REVERTED while this issue is discussed. TJ Spyke 20:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps that was premature? I saw more and more people pointing out that our guidelines recommend that we avoid eccentric typography, except in limited cases like iPod and eBay. I think it's clear that this case is different from those, but as the discussion is ongoing, I probably should have held off on that. Yeah, that was a mistake. I'm not sure if I should move it back now (adding yet another move to the history), or leave it. I'm sorry; I'm not sure what I was thinking. If you revert the move, I won't put it back, but I strongly suspect that someone will, just because I think that's what the consensus is, regarding the formatting of trademarks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

TJ, I'm starting to see you as the only person who refuses to believe that it's right to put this page at Impact instead of iMPACT. I believe that there is consensus that we should not allow trademarks to force a specific typography on how we do things. The end result of that would be to place this article at Impact and not iMPACT. FWIW, to the person who claimed that nobody uses "Impact" or that he'd not seen it any way other than "iMPACT" ever before: Here's one example from a game review website and if you check the show's own website, there are 3 instances of it as "IMPACT". Even the show does not always use its own special typography. ju66l3r 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not the only one, it's just that I am the only one replying so far. TJ Spyke 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please make an affirmative statement on why iMPACT is the correct typography? All I have seen is opposition to the move from the previous status quo. In other words, if another company produces a product called jUICE, the first time the article is created, should it be titled jUICE or Juice and what policy/guideline would deem your choice to be appropriate? ju66l3r 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

TJ, this is policy, so you are fighting a losing effort. This is the way that it is supposed to be. 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT policy, which you would know if you had checked the MOS page first. It is only a guideline (i.e. suggestion, not a rule). The guideline specifically says that exceptions are allowed. TJ Spyke 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I cited the guidelines in an earlier discussion, which supported TJ's and my case. I believe the page(s) should be moved back.Freebird Jackson 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:
  • avoid: REALTOR®
  • instead, use: Realtor

That is the part of the guideline that I cite copied directly from the page; not anyone's interpretation. That is very explicit. I do not see why an exception should be made in this case. This is Wikipedia convention, and to quote the page, "When in doubt, follow convention." I would say that this is in doubt. 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There are other articles that are allowed like this, Pro Wrestling NOAH for example. TJ Spyke

Which is even a more clear-cut case (unless "NOAH" is an acronym for something), thanks for pointing it out. The article has been edited to reflect its current title, in order to provide coherency for the readers until this discussion is through. Though to be honest, I'm more and more of the impression that it is. While the previous survey was not considered conclusive enough by the closing administrator, it still held a 7:4 majority for "Impact!" and coupled with the people speaking in favor of dropping "iMPACT!", there appears to be consensus after all. I'd also like to mention WP:DIAR (WP:IAR's more reasonable twin), since even though WP:MOS-TM does not cover this scenario word-by-word, the intentions behind it, its spirit, are clearly not in favor of preserving this particular example of stylized typography. Then again, I'm pretty sure the few remaining "iMPACT!" purists will dismiss it as "just an essay". - Cyrus XIII 11:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we just stop arguing and follow convention, please? Don't make me look at you with my puppy dog eyes; no one can resist the puppy dog eyes. 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is different. Can we please just go by the correct name already? TJ Spyke 23:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, what about SAT and GED? Those USED to stand for something, not anymore (now they officially don't stand for anything). Wouldn't they technically have to be moved to "Sat" and "Ged"? Why should those get exceptions? TJ Spyke 06:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, GED still stands for the "General Educational Development" test. As far as the SAT goes, I was under the impression that it had just been renamed the Stanford Aptitude Test, but I'm not 100% on that. Either way it isn't in the article, so yes, that one should be moved. Anyway, you've participated in AfDs. You know that we don't grant exceptions because of other mistakes; we fix the other mistakes. Now, why does this article deserve an exception? 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong about GED (just checked the article), but SAT no longer stands for something (same with DVD). I just feel strongly about this one, maybe because i'm such a big fan of wrestling (I also opposed WWE RAW being moved to WWE Raw, but didn't put up quite as much of a fight because even WWE calls it Raw a lot). At this pace, we will probably end up with the same situation we have with WWE Raw (have the article title be spelled/capitalized normal, but in the actual articles use the more accurate capitalization. TJ Spyke 07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the situation that we have with the Raw article is what works best within WP policy and the standard spelling. Also, I deleted the dog, as it was in the way ;). Glad that we have this worked out, or I think that we do anyway. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 07:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How about trying to argue OK and ABC? And I think you really should move this discussion to MOS:TM. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by OK and ABC. If you are referring to the word (OK is short for Okay) and the TV channel (it stands for American Broadcasting Corporation). Maybe this should be moved to MOS:TM, since there are several other articles that technically would have to be moved for the same reasons. TJ Spyke 10:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ABC as in the alphabet. And OK as in the word. --Aaru Bui ^DII 10:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See the ABC page for that. And technically "OK" is short for "Okay" (the same way Mister is short for Mr.), so OK is not a word. TJ Spyke 10:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they are currently acronyms for anything, SAT, DVD, ABC and OK are all examples of things that are spelled aloud (SAT is pronounced "ess-ay-tee," not like "sat"), and therefore should be capitalized throughout to reflect how they are spoken. Unless iMPACT! is pronounced "eye-em-pee-ay-see-tee!", the comparison is not appropriate. The name of the show is pronounced like the word "impact," therefore that is how it should be spelled - with the first letter capitalized because it is a proper noun. See WP:MOSTM. PubliusFL 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, we will bring this to WP:MOSTM, but for now I can agree to a situation like RAW. TJ Spyke 01:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This one is obvious. It's not "iMPACT" according to our style guide.

I absolutely cannot grasp why some editors here seem to insist that we adopt the nonstandard capitalization used by the trademark holder here. We follow the style guideline, and the correct capitalization for this proper noun is "TNA Impact". "iMPACT" is a stylized rendering used only to draw attention. This isn't up for debate. Please do not keep reverting the article back to the nonstandard capitalization. —ptk?fgs 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not so obvious based on the history of the article (inlcluding a move request that failed, but someone moved it anyways). Maybe you should stop reverting as well and discuss it here. TJ Spyke 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the plan. What do you feel is the reason that we should capitalize it as "iMPACT"?

Here are the relevant sections from MOSTM:

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment

Standard English capitalization for "impact" as part of a proper noun dictates that we use "Impact."

Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgement call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable

Clearly, "iMPACT" is not camel case. Regardless, we would only use it here if it made the trademark more readable. "Impact" is without doubt the more readable form. —ptk?fgs 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, just read the page or the archive for the discussions revolving around this. One quick point though, MOSTM is just a guideline and says exceptions are allowed. TJ Spyke 01:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO Raw is a precident for this. ?? -- The Hybrid 02:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't responses. The previous discussion is inapplicable. Why does this particular instance warrant an exception? What on earth does precedent have to do with this? Wikipedia is not a court. —ptk?fgs 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In all truthfulness all we do on these talk pages is play lawyer with the policies, and precidents are brought up on admin noticeboards all the time. Wikipedia is exactly like a court. ?? -- The Hybrid 02:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is why I am willing to drop the issue. Keep the iMPACT articles where they are, but treat them the same way as RAW. TJ Spyke 02:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you has yet offered a reason why "iMPACT" needs to be used here. Do you not have a reason? —ptk?fgs 03:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

<-------My reason is simply that this is the way that Raw is. Why Raw is that way, I don't know; I wasn't a part of that, but I do think that they need to be treated the same way. Maybe you should ask on the Raw talk page. ?? -- The Hybrid 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation at the Raw article is nonsensical. We should worry about this situation here, and discuss that one separately there. Please do not try to argue in circles; it is not persuasive. —ptk?fgs 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To you, because you deny the fact that precedents do exist on Wikipedia. Also, treating them differently just wouldn't make sense. Honestly, I don?t care what happens. Now, I have to log off. ?? -- The Hybrid 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A precedent is not meaningful in this situation. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for an explanation of why this is the case. I don't know why "Raw" is subjected to nonstandard capitalization in the other article; that is not my concern at the moment. Perhaps the situation needs to be corrected there as well. Perhaps it is commonly called "R-A-W" instead of being pronounced "raw". What we need here is a reason why impact should be rendered with odd capitalization, not a shrugging of shoulders and pointing to a different article. —ptk?fgs 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WWE Raw uses normal formatting for "Raw." So now can we use normal formatting for Impact? PubliusFL 03:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See my (and others) previous arguements for why iMPACT should be formatted as iMPACT rather than Impact. TJ Spyke 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must be missing something. The only arguments I saw were 1) TNA wants it that way, 2) the quote about having the first letter in lowercase if the second letter is capitalized, and 3) a broad assertion that WP:MOSTM is a guideline and not a policy. Regarding 1, what TNA wants is clearly not a significant factor in Wikipedia style per WP:MOSTM. Regarding 2, that quote is clearly most applicable to CamelCase titles, which this is not. And regarding 3, with 1 and 2 gone, what is the reason for deviating from the guidelines? If we ignore the guidelines just because we "can," we might as well not have them. Exceptions should have some kind of justification not contemplated in the guidelines themselves. PubliusFL 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is going to go on for a little while we should probably move this to the WP:PW talk page, as logic says whatever happens here happens to Raw. ?? -- The Hybrid 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Until this issue is settled, it should be kept the way it is though. TJ Spyke 04:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• You guys might want to watch out, it seems like an editor keeps trying to change it without discussing the issue. Lrrr IV 07:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The style guide as it is does not fully support (and maybe even goes against) Impact!. So why why don't we just hurry up and go through with the guideline changing instead of going nowhere as we are over here. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid, and a hatful of the editors here should get blocked for edit warring. I don't even know why we have a damn exclamation mark everywhere, I'm in favor of TNA Impact, as the majority of news sites use. Firstly, I don't think there's any point in using the branding capitalization at all, unlike camel case titles like iPod and eBay, the capitalization of iMPACT is meaningless. Xtc340 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

An argument I've seen for the exclamation mark was that the Yahoo! article uses it. --Aaru Bui ^DII 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSTM: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g. ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used" (emphasis mine). The exclamation point is not pronounced, unless you're supposed to shout "Impact!" every time you speak the program's name. "Impact!" does not follow the "standard rules of punctuation." Therefore, per WP:MOSTM, this usage should be avoided except for "the first time the trademark appears." PubliusFL 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See Yahoo!, they use "Yahoo!" all through the article, not just once. TJ Spyke 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. One counterexample not mentioned in the guideline does not outweigh the plain meaning of the guideline's text, combined with the examples that are included in the guideline, like Yellow Tail. PubliusFL 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Then go complain on the Yahoo! talk page. TJ Spyke 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I will. But again, what Yahoo! does, as a solitary example, is not evidence of what TNA Impact! should do. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PubliusFL 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the ! only being used in the title and the first time in the article, the same thing is done with most similar articles (SmackDown! for example). TJ Spyke 00:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear that the appropriate spelling here is "TNA Impact". The exclamation mark is used only for decoration. —ptk✰fgs 02:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, not it's not. It's either "TNA iMPACT!" or (to a less extent) "TNA Impact!". TJ Spyke 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why? Please try to avoid chiming in with "But Yahoo has it!" here. On Wikipedia, we render trademarks using standard English orthography, and without strictly decorative punctuation. —ptk✰fgs 04:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean besides the fact that it's the correct name of the show? Or the fact that the "!" is used in the title by TV Guide, IMDb and TV.com [2]? TJ Spyke 04:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Different publications have different style guides. And style on Wikipedia is determined not by the style guides of TV Guide, IMDb, or TV.com, but by WP:MOS. PubliusFL 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, it is clear you just have something against this show or wrestling in general. The fact that TNA and every publication uses the "!", and the fact stuff like "!" and "?" are allowed in titles of TV show/movies/video games/websites don't seem to matter to you. There is nothing against the "!" in MOS. TJ Spyke 05:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but I personally have no feeling one way or the other about wrestling or any wrestling series. I do, however, highly value our efforts here to render trademarks in standard English orthography. Wikipedia should not be a platform for promoting or disparaging any topic it discusses. The use of excessively flashy typography -- of which "TNA iMPACT!" is a quintessential and prototypical example -- inhibits our ability to maintain a neutral point of view and to maintain a consistent, professional presentation in the encyclopedia. WP:MOSTM does, in fact, specifically exclude the use of decorative punctuation:

Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g. ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used.

The standard rules of punctuation call for the exclamation mark to be used only at the end of an exclamatory sentence or interjection. In this article, "TNA Impact" is used as a proper noun, not as an exclamation or interjection. —ptk✰fgs 05:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's "TNA Impact!" or "TNA iMPACT!" is up to debate, but there is no doubt that the "!" is part of the show's name and will be part of the article's name. I'm not saying it has to be used everytime you say it (I usually just type iMPACT), but "!" is part of the title. Don't tell me you think that every movie/TV show/game article on WP should have exclamation points/question marks/etc. removed. TJ Spyke 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In the body of the article, after the initial mention? Absolutely. And that's what the style guide indicates. —ptk✰fgs 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Ptkfgs. The exclamation point contravenes MOSTM because it is a character that is not pronounced, just in the title for decoration, and does not follow standard rules of punctuation. I have no particular feelings one way or another about wrestling or wrestling programs. I came to this article from the RfC page, and have taken the same position on orthography regarding articles about bands, authors, manga artists, and firearms. PubliusFL 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the same as bands/authors/manga artists,etc. This is a TV show, therefore it should be compared to other TV shows/movies, etc. (which do allows "!" in the title). TJ Spyke 06:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What other TV shows/movies/etc? Maybe I'll go suggest that they be changed, too. ;) But the same guideline applies to them all. Where in MOSTM does it say "except for TV shows"? PubliusFL 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's clear this up: are you trying the get the "!" removed from the article title, or just in the article itself? TJ Spyke 05:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's take care of the article first, and then worry about the title. As far as I know, an exclamation mark does not present any technical problems so I would not worry about the title. —ptk✰fgs 05:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous: arguing about how to title the page. According to tnawrestling.com, it is spelled iMPACT! with a lowercase i. So basically, I suggest either changing the first sentence to "TNA Impact! (also known as TNA iMPACT!) is a professional wrestling..." or "TNA iMPACT! (also known as TNA Impact!) is a professional wrestling..." and etc., etc., etc (I would agree that although it is not up to wikipedia standards, iMPACT! is the official way to spell it according to the website). But honestly who cares, just as long as one spelling redirects to the article and both alternative spellings are acknowledged on the article, then there should be no problem. --Aa35te ^(talk) 03:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Official isn't what this dispute is about; it is about following guidelines, which there is currently only one person opposing, unless you care to join with him, but I suggest reading over all of this first. Hmm, that was a long sentence. -- The Hybrid 04:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There have been several people for iMPACT. The others have moved on, and it's just a couple of people still discussing. TJ Spyke 04:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

So, to resummarize where we stand, I feel that the guidelines are very explicit with the fact that iMPACT! should be spelled Impact! in the article. TJ, please resummarize where you stand on the guideline so that there are no misunderstandings. -- The Hybrid 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the guidelines do allow for it to be iMPACT. I am still open to the compromise of letting the article be title Impact and using iMPACT in the article itself. TJ Spyke 05:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is allowed when you take the spirit of the policy. You Wikilawyered to get it to allow your side to have a chance. -- The Hybrid 05:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying I did, but there is technically nothing wrong with wikilawyering. TJ Spyke 05:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of the guideline is always taken over a technicality, especially ones as debatable as this one. -- The Hybrid 05:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is no such programme called TNA Impact. It has always and always will be referred to TNA iMPACT!. I think even TV Guides list the programme as TNA iMPACT. I'm actually getting bored. My god, why are we arguing over the name of a TV programme, when we could actually be doing some editing to this article to get it to a better level, instead of bickering like little kids. It seems like some of you people like arguing! Who gives a damn about the name of the programme. Davnel03 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying there's no such program as Thirtysomething because it's officially called (by its makers) "thirtysomething." On Wikipedia, per Wikipedia guidelines, it's "Thirtysomething." And it's false that the program in question here will "always" be referred to as iMPACT, because as a simple matter of fact it is commonly referred to as Impact. I give a damn about the name of the program because I only came to this article through a RfC about the name of the program. And I don't like seeing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ignored without good reason. PubliusFL 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! -- The Hybrid 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the same, the guideline specifially names thirtysomething. That is different anyways since that is about words that are all small letters. TJ Spyke 23:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was the same. I was agreeing with PubliusFL in that I don't like to see policies (or their spirits) ignored without a good reason. -- The Hybrid 23:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The guideline specifically names thirtysomething? Exactly! So you can learn from the example. There's not much use in having a guideline at all if you have to actually list each article that the guideline applies to in the guideline itself to get anyone to follow the guideline, eh? PubliusFL 23:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that, I said that the thirtysomething example is for articles that are all small letters. If this was "tna impact!", then that would apply here. TJ Spyke 00:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're still ignoring the spirit of the policy, TJ. -- The Hybrid 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But you did say that, TJ. You said "This is not the same, the guideline specifially names thirtysomething" (sic). Then you went on to make the all-lowercase point. In any event, I brought up Thirtysomething in response to Davne103's suggestion that there is no such program as "TNA Impact" - clearly, the fact that we capitalize a program title differently than the trademark holder doesn't change it into an article about a different program. PubliusFL 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This dispute should be an easy one. I only wish that more disinterested parties cared enough to weigh in in the topic. (For the record, I am not attempting to present myself as a disinterested party. I am both a pro wrestling fan and someone who believes that the Manual of Style should be applied judiciously.) "Impact" is the correct style to use becasue:

1. MoS:TM is very clear on the topic. In order to suggest otherwise, it is necessary to willfully ignore both the letter and the spirit of the guideline.
2. Those advancing the "it's only a guideline, not a policy" argument fail to understand that guidelines are supposed to be enforced. In order to make an exception to the guideline, there needs to be a reason. "It's the name the company uses" (or "It's the 'official name'" or "it's CORRECT!") are clearly NOT valid reasons to make an exception to the MoS. In fact, MoS:TM specifically exists to PREVENT articles from using the usage that companies prefer to use to promote their products.
3. Most respected pro wrestling publications use "TNA Impact" anyway. It's not as if there is no precedent for standard English usage regarding this name. Croctotheface 07:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you clearly state the spirit of the guideline? --Aaru Bui ^DII 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The letter and spirit of the guideline is, and I'm directly quoting, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." It is not standard English to render the first letter of a proper noun in lowercase and the rest in uppercase. Croctotheface 23:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. We use standard English orthography even when the mark owner requests special treatment. There's really not much to dispute here. —ptk✰fgs 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting edit

• Replace: |last_aired = Present
  • With: |last_aired = present
• Replace: [[ja:TNA 日本語]]
  • With: [[ja:TNA・インパクト]]
• Replace: *[[Mike Tenay]] (June 2004 - Present)
  • With: *[[Mike Tenay]] (June 2004 – present)
• Replace: *[[Don West (sportscaster)|Don West]] (June 2004 - Present)
  • With: *[[Don West (sportscaster)|Don West]] (June 2004 – present)

Aaru Bui ^DII 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

This is seriously still going on?! You're kidding, right? Or did someone just forget to request unprotection? Please tell me that's it. -- The Hybrid 22:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been resolved. I offered a compromise, if others agree to it we can get the page unprotected. TJ Spyke 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind repeating it here? I'm tired of reading this talk page. There is no logic to how it is organized. -- The Hybrid 23:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, keep the page at Impact!, but refer to it in the article as iMPACT! (or iMPACT). TJ Spyke 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that one. That goes against the spirit of the guideline. For clarification, the spirit is that we will use standard English capitalization regardless of what the copyright holder uses. -- The Hybrid 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, that is why the page is still locked. No one else is offering a compromise. TJ Spyke 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this really can't be compromised. The guideline is very explicit about this sort of thing. Impact! is what it will be referred to if we do the right thing. Can we just agree on that and let this finally end, please? -- The Hybrid 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The right thing is iMPACT, and there is nothing against it. This whole issue started because a bitter poster was upset that the move request he supported failed (but he moved it anyways). TJ Spyke 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't presented one thing of proof for iMPACT! being the right thing that hasn't been refuted, while we have presented arguments based in he Wiki guidelines and MoS that have yet to be refuted. Why this page got moved is irrelevant, BTW, as this discussion will decided what happens in the future. -- The Hybrid 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a negotiation. This is a page cleanup operation. Alright? The guideline is clear and perfectly justified. —ptk✰fgs 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you have stated your opinion. I have stated guidelines that support me, but I am always accused of "wikilaywering". TJ Spyke 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Support you?! If not explicetly opposing you when you ignore why the policy was written counts as support, then sure. Anyway, we have backed up everything that we have said with guidelines that do explicetly support us. -- The Hybrid 23:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you've interpeted them to think they support you. TJ Spyke 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, have a mirror. Chris cheese whine 00:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we have stated the guidelines and let them speak for themselves, and they seem to agree. -- The Hybrid 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

pRECISELY. tHE ONLY TIME "iMPACT!" WOULD BE tHE rIGHT tHING IS WHEN YOUR cAPS lOCK BUTTON IS IN tHE wRONG pLACE. cHRIS cHEESE wHINE 00:11 22 mARCH 2007 (utc)

How about this as a compromise: You read WP:OWN and finally drop this tired issue, the article gets unprotected and work on it can finally continue. - Cyrus XIII 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said Cyrus. So, problem solved? -- The Hybrid 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Who were you talking to about owning? I am just trying to use the correct name, and the one that was agreed upon. TJ Spyke 00:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "agreed upon"? In the move discussion, more people supported the move than opposed it, and most people who came to this article in response to the RfC (e.g., me) thought that MOSTM requires "Impact" rather than "iMPACT." PubliusFL 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TJ, do you reject MoS:TM? If so, are you capable of following Wikipedia policy and procedural guidelines even if you disagree with them? I don't mean to get personal, but based on what has happened at WWE Raw, I can understand the frustration that other editors here are probably feeling. It doesn't seem to me that you've offered any rationale for why this article should be treated differently from Fox broadcasting, Time magazine, or any of the examples listed at MoS:TM. Your only argument seems to be that "iMPACT" is "correct", but you seem to define "correct" as "what the trademark owner uses and wants others to use". MoS:TM is very specific in dealing with this matter; it says, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." I assume that we are in agreement that wRITING wORDS lIKE tHIS is not "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules", so I'm left to wonder what facts or logic your stance is based on here. Croctotheface 12:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(Hybrid pulls his head back, increases the tension in his neck, and kjygdfuyhbdsfig! he slams his head on the keyboard) There is clearly a general agreement to use Impact!, so can we just declare the dispute solved and get the page unprotected, please?! If enough people come out of the woodworks disagreeing with the decision, then we can reopen discussion, but for right now can we just say its over?! -- The Hybrid 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean "Impact!" as the article title, yes. If you mean in the article itself, no. It's just that a couple of editors are being stubborn. TJ Spyke 22:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see only one stubborn editor here. -- The Hybrid 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, you have been refuted at every turn, so will you just admit that you were wrong so we can move on, please?! You are currently the only person representing your side, so it appears that they consensus has shifted away from you. As I have already stated, if enough people show up afterwards who disagree with Impact!, then discussion will reopen. Now, you have no guidelines that support you, where as our side does. Please just admit that and let the article be unprotected. You are the only person standing in the way of that, as everyone else who thinks the way you do has moved on. -- The Hybrid 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's because the people supporting the right side got tired of arguing. If you want, I can contact them. I have always used (and will always use) iMPACT since that is the correct title and there is nothing against that name (I have shown on guideline used against it can be prooved wrong. TJ Spyke 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And we proved you wrong. Go ahead and contact them. Just make sure to tell them to objectively read over our comments, as I'm sure fresh eyes will agree that there is no rational way around the guidelines. -- The Hybrid 23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And I proved you wrong. I and others have shown that technically none of the guidelines/policys are against it, so you have not proven me wrong. TJ Spyke 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we even reading the same talk page? -- The Hybrid 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am reading this talkpage, which are you reading? TJ Spyke 23:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm reading this one, so one of us must have dyslexia...alright this is unproductive. Just contact those people already, -- The Hybrid 23:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, please... get over it! It's unbelievably clear that MOSTM specifies "Impact" as the spelling here. It doesn't matter what capitalization the trademark owner uses... we ignore that, and we use standard English capitalization. —ptk✰fgs 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. TJ Spyke 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Prove it, in your mind again, if you would be so kind. -- The Hybrid 23:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke, if the intent of MOSTM's language "even if the trademark holder encourages special treatment" isn't precisely cases like this, then what on Earth is it? In your understanding of the guideline, what the heck is it telling us? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

MOS is for cases like thirtysomething, REALTOR®, and Toys "Я" Us. TJ Spyke 02:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So, do you interpret the guideline to be telling us that, except for a few exceptions, we do allow special formatting? My interpretation is that, except for special exeptions (like iPod and eBay) we don't allow special formatting. What do you take to be the spirit of the guideline? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose. This is one of the exceptions for sure. TJ Spyke 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh. It seems to me to be "for sure" not one of the exceptions, but rather a clear case of exactly what the spirit of the guideline is talking about. I'll ask again - what do you take to the spirit of the guideline? What makes you "sure" that this is an exception, as the guideline is intended? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I did answer. Your interpetation is right in general. I disagree that this is a clear case though. TJ Spyke 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for misunderstanding your reply. I guess it's a matter for seeing what kind of consensus develops... -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I want to here why this isn't a clear case. Thus far all you have done is assert that it is. Say why, and don't just say, "because iMPACT! is right," because that is simply your opinion. -- The Hybrid 04:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that TJ does not reject MoS:TM. However, I don't see why this should be an exception. I'd appreciate if he could lay out his case in as much explicit detail as possible so that we can discuss it. Croctotheface 05:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As before, I've already stated that I'm in favour of dropping the exclamation mark as well (from the article text anyway), I'm not too bothered about the exclamation mark in the title. I favour the "TNA Impact" style of capitalization. Of related note is another requested move, WWF InVasion → WWF Invasion. Xtc340 12:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you contacted the people, one came back to you and said that he was on our side, and the others seem to have ignored you. Now we even have another person who has returned, Xtc340, who is on our side. Can you please just stop so that we can we get the article unprotected? -- The Hybrid 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not. I don't know how everyone else feels about this, but I think this is a pretty trivial issue to risk a request for comment on user conduct over, isn't it? - Cyrus XIII 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a trivial issue, but the conduct isn't. He would be willing to do this in any debate over anything. *Moan*, I think that an RfC is warranted. -- The Hybrid 19:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd support filing an RFC/User. See also his conduct on WWE Raw, wherein he was dissatisfied that the page was moved, so he changed nearly all the mentions of "Raw" within the article to "RAW" based on a suprious rationale. Croctotheface 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, my patience here has expired. I believe we may proceed without his support and simply revert the edits as vandalism disruptive. Consensus need not be unanimous. —ptk✰fgs 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll file a RfUP, but I doubt that they will unprotect given TJ's colorful history with edit disputes. -- The Hybrid 19:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

His edits aren't vandalism, no matter how stubbornly he sticks to them, because he's doing what seems right to him. The trouble is, he's willing to edit war over it, and doesn't seem willing or able to provide a good reason for his position other than, "exceptions are allowed".

Maybe, if we ask him nicely, TJ would agree to refrain from reverting while the issue is taken to WT:MOSTM, or whatever forum, and a decision is made. Then maybe we could lift page protection and let the article continue to be improved.

If TJ chooses to edit war, the best response is to go through the steps of dispute resolution: article RFC, user conduct RFC, etc. (In this case, we've already done the article RFC, at least on this article.) If this really is a pattern of his, then it needs to be addressed, because it's disruptive. At some point, one has to accept that the intent of the guideline is what it is. You can always go to the guideline or policy page, or the Village Pump, and argue that we should change, but it the meantime, we should be as consistent as we can in applying the guidelines we've got. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. That would not be vandalism. —ptk✰fgs 20:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone was accusing him of vandalism. He simply has a pattern of 3RR violations, and has been accused of having control issues on a fair number of occasions. I think that a RfCUC is warranted no matter what we do, as this type of thing is unacceptable. I have already requested unprotection for the page. -- The Hybrid 20:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression, based on what TJ has said most recently, is that he does not reject MoS:TM except when it would be applied to a wrestling-related article. It may be possible to convince him that there's no reason to except wrestling from the guideline. However, in the meantime, he HAS chosen to edit war, particularly at WWE Raw. He has edit warred with me, even recently, despite the discussion that established that the page should be moved so that it is titled in accordance with MoS:TM. See the page history for evidence of his reverts. Croctotheface 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

An RfC with all of this information is sounding better and better. -- The Hybrid 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead then, I just replaced "iMPACT!" once again and its getting tedious. - Cyrus XIII 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that an edit war? 2 reverts in the last week. Even 2 reverts in the last day wouldn't be an edit war. TJ Spyke 20:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Edit war, both definitions. Croctotheface 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It just got unprotected. -- The Hybrid 20:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the way I see it. The WP:MOSTM seems to be vague in actually defining some of its directives. Because Impact is one word, CamelCase clearly doesn't apply here. However, someone could in theory interpret that second letter capital rule as allowing for any subsequent letters in the name to be capitalized. My belief is that the best argument puts this article at TNA Impact, without awkward and unnecessary capitalization and without the exclamation mark, as both are done strictly to capitalize on the design of the word when spelled with exclamation mark and lowercase i. 70.111.59.79 04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason that the MoS was written was to prevent very odd ways of capitalization from being used, so iMPACT! is out. As far as the ! goes, I don't really care. It doesn't seem that odd, but eh. Well everyone, is a vote on the ! warranted? -- The Hybrid 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, every other TV show and movie that has a ! at the end has it listed here (look at Jeopardy! for example), and there is nothing against it in any guideline. TJ Spyke 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Jeopardy! and Yahoo! are precedents indicating a pretty good consensus that we're ok with using some decorative punctuation, although other precedents such as Lucky ☆ Star and P!nk indicate that we draw the line once it gets much weirder than a terminal exclamation mark. There are certainly other sources styling it as "TNA Impact!", so we're not inventing a new format. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. I think dropping the exclamation mark here (as well as for Yahoo and Jeopardy) would be a more professional style, as well as more consistent with the spirit of WP:MOSTM, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient consensus to support that view. —ptk✰fgs 05:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As I argued above, I also would support dropping the exclamation point from the article text. WP:MOSTM: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g. ♥ used for 'love'). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used" (emphasis mine). The exclamation point is not pronounced, unless you're supposed to shout "Impact!" every time you speak the program's name. "Impact!" does not follow the "standard rules of punctuation." Therefore, per WP:MOSTM, this usage should be avoided except for "the first time the trademark appears." PubliusFL 05:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got a lot of sympathy for what you're saying, but I'd test that doctrine by proposing moves at Jeopardy! and Yahoo!, and seeing how that goes over. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Yahoo!/Archive 1#Requested move, which was just a few months ago. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in the Yahoo RM, as you've probably noticed, and I really think that one was wrongly decided. It seems that the closing admin just did a vote count, as I don't think the pro-exclamation point arguments were at all persuasive, and just about every notable publication we could find did not use it. However, in cases like Jeopardy! and this, I'm inclined to grant a bit more leeway toward using a non-standard style. For one thing, the fact that the name of the show is rendered in italics helps a bit with the readibility problem, since it's much less likely to look like end punctuation in the middle of a sentence. In the case of Jeopardy!, most publications seem to use the exclamation point, which brings up a common name/"don't invent new forms" concern. In the case of Impact!, most publications do not replicate the "iMPACT" spelling, so that kind of argument would not have been valid to use wacky capitalization. Croctotheface 12:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, as a style matter, an exclamation point in the title concerns me less than exclamation points in the body of the article. MOSTM itself says that decorative characters are acceptable "the first time a trademark appears," but that "standard rules of punctuation" should be followed thereafter. The spirit of the rule seems to be that extraneous punctuation marks break up the flow of text in the body of the article (because that's what "punctuation" means), but the same concern doesn't apply as strongly to the article's title or headings. PubliusFL 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude... it's over.

Please don't edit against established consensus, and certainly don't use inaccurate edit summaries to conceal re-introduction of the stylized typography. —ptk✰fgs 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You know that you would get blocked before the page would get reprotected, right? -- The Hybrid 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox formatting

What exactly is the problem with the Infobox Television template? If the manual of a template which is in wide use suggests a certain formatting, we go with that, for the sake of consistency and to ease editing for as many potential contributors as possible. This isn't really something which should be styled around the personal preferences of local regulars. - Cyrus XIII 07:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you really making a big deal out of this? It's just deleting the extra space that exists between the "|" and the first word. Most templates don't use it. Besides, getting rid of it trims the article (albeit by only a few bytes), and is less of an eyesore. Also, the only people who would notice anything are people who edit the page, people just viewing the page will see no difference. TJ Spyke 08:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, your edit before the one you are referring to removed the spaces following the equal signs, meaning those between template code and content, which is a slightly different story, not to mention that the infobox used to have no extra spaces at all, it was a messy pile of data. Also, the argument to just go with what the given template manual suggests, as opposed to fixing self-perceived "eyesores" still stands. - Cyrus XIII 08:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It was fine before too. It didn't mess anything up, it reduced, the size of the article a little, and was still easy to edit. The template is not being messed with, nothing was removed with or changed by removing the extra space. So what's the big deal? This seems like a silly issue to argue over. TJ Spyke 09:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then we should just agree that the creators of the template in question, as well as myself disagree with you. - Cyrus XIII 09:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess TJ would also agree with removing the line breaks? --Aaru Bui ^DII 05:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Two-Hour Time slot

TNA announced at No Surrender that Impact will be going to two hours on October 4th. I added a section , and if somebody wants to expand it, that would be greatly appreciated.63.3.9.129 02:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Move

Should this be moved to TNA iMPACT, as that is what it is called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bam123456789 (talk • contribs) + Should this be moved to TNA iMPACT as that is what it is called

It SHOULD, but see Talk:TNA_Impact!/Archive 2 for why it won't. TJ Spyke 21:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No. We do not go by the what it is trademarked as. –Cheers, LAX 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

TNA Impact! → TNA iMPACT!

Resolved

• I'm not suggesting a move, I'm just wondering why the TNA Impact! article (both the TV show and the video game) can't be named TNA iMPACT!. Can comeone provide me with a reason?

—SAVIOR_SELF.777 01:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Mainly because Impact! is supposed to be written like Impact! and not iMPACT!. The game I believe can be changed but the last time I saw TNA even writes the game like TNA Impact!.--WillC 02:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of WP:CAPS.--S_RX 02:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. this thing has been bugging me for a while and I wondered why it couldn't be moved. And, I didn't know whether or not to put this on WP:ANC or WT:PW. So, thanks guys. SAVIOR_SELF.777 03:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Not doneS_RX 03:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

TNA Webography

Should this not be added to the Recurring segments Adster95 13:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What is that? Do you mean the Rough Cut segment? TJ Spyke 00:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think she/he means the videos they upload on youtube, considering that is what they are called. TNA webography.--WillC 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Those? Then the answer is no. This page is for Impact only. Those are features of TNA's website. TJ Spyke 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He (long for adam) and they seem to be shown in between the show i was watching the main event mafia takeover one and when it went to a break it showed ODB on a thing called webography http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djVXNPofIAE&feature=related Adster95 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I thought that segment was called Rough Cut. I guess that can go in. TJ Spyke 19:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a new segement. They still do the rough cut things. This week was Ultimate X.--WillC 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I only started watching Impact again recently, so I don't know when the segment started. Someone else who has that knowledge will have to add it. TJ Spyke 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well on the section for TNA Webography it was wrote on the 13th December so im guessing it debuted in December 2008 Adster95 09:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Those videos are online only. They are just featured from time to time on Impact. I remember when those were uploaded on Youtube. There was one for almost everybody. Those aren't needed in recurring segments. They are better set for TNA Today if anything. Considering how much TNA uses their Youtube account, it might be best just to make an article about everything they featured on there.--WillC 10:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No. of episodes

There haven't been 263 episodes already. Next week's episode is #200. Oh yes. 41.245.181.0 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That is number 200 on Spike.--WillC 12:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there's no question TNA has been on each week since its Spike TV Debut, just for verification on the episode number, as of today (July 26) [3] AfroGold - Afkatk 22:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)