Talk:WWE TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs

Requested move 14 April 2016

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. After 2 relistings, it seems there seems to be a consensus in favor of moving this page. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

---

• WWE TLC: Tables, Ladders, and Chairs → WWE TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs
• TLC: Tables, Ladders, and Chairs (2009) → TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2009)
• TLC: Tables, Ladders, and Chairs (2010) → TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2010)
• TLC: Tables, Ladders, and Chairs (2011) → TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2011)
• TLC: Tables, Ladders, and Chairs (2012) → TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2012)
• TLC: Tables, Ladders, and Chairs (2013) → TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2013)
• TLC: Tables, Ladders and Chairs (2014) → TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2014)
• TLC: Tables, Ladders, and Chairs (2015) → TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2015)

– MOS:& requires us to respect the titles of works that use the & instead of "and". WWE's official title for the PPV includes the ampersand and every result referring to the PPV when searching their website for "Tables Ladders and Chairs" will exclusively use the ampersand. Furthermore, the titles of most of these articles use a comma right before the "and". This comma is not only syntactically incorrect, but it's not used by WWE on any documentation of the show. Furthermore, the prose of these articles use the correct comma-less title, so I am baffled as to how this oversight has lasted all these years. Feedback 04:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Syntactically incorrect? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – The ampersand is rare in better sources. And get rid of the redundant acronym TLC:, as sources do not do that. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You're confusing this subject with the similar Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match. Feedback 16:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I was confusing those things. So where can I find a source that shows "TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs"? None of the cited sources are finding it for me, though some mention TLC and one mentions the expanded version with the ampersand. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I googled the title and found a bunch of different links: WWE.com, Ticketmaster (http://www.ticketmaster .com/WWE-TLC-Tables-Ladders-Chairs-tickets/artist/1523691), [http://amazon.com/WWE-Tables-Ladders-Chairs-2010/dp/B00465I1EC?sa-no-redirect=1 Amazon], WWE's YouTube Channel, Walmart, Google Play, IMDB, and many more. Feedback 21:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Your results contain all sort of variants such "WWE: TLC - Tables, Ladders & Chairs", and it's very hard to see any consistency about anything that looks like an official title. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That's just the Amazon listing. Regardless, if you're looking for "consistency", they all have ampersands, notwithstanding whether the hyphen is used as a delimiter in literally only one result. Feedback 23:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. If the creator, in this case WWE consistently uses the ampersand, then all other sources are erroneous. And the acronym isn't redundant, it's part of the title, no matter what one guy might say. We respect the titles of creative works; we have no right to tell a creator they are wrong about their own creation. oknazevad (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

But do they? In any case, per MOS:TM, what sources use can matter. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOSTM is for highly unusual product names, where there's clearly a promotional purpose. I have a severe issue with applying it too robotically to any creative work, as it assigns purely promotional motives to the choices of the creators without evidence. Maybe it is for promotional reasons. Maybe it's purely aesthetic. Maybe it has a particular artistic statement. Frankly, I find the use of it to support someone's WP:JDLI stance (which I have seen numerous times) insulting and offensive to the moral rights of creators and breathtakingly stupid in its one dimensional thought. Especially in light of the aforementioned MOS:&, which contradicts MOSTM. So, no, I don't give a flying frig what it says there, as the guideline needs major reworking, and so I bluntly evoke IAR, as the guideline (not policy) is a poor rule. I also think actually using what the people who produce creative works want to call their works, instead of newspapers that have traditionally forcibly conformed things because of their technological limits (although those limits might not exist anymore, the conventions caused by them remain). In other words, I think this is a case of sources being inaccurate about facts to conform with their own style guides, which we are not beholden to. oknazevad (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't get what you'r saying about "robotically", or "purely promotional motives". Where are these concepts coming from? It makes the rest of your paragraph hard to interpret. Who are you pissed at, and for what? Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. WWE uses the ampersand and omits the serial comma, and we should respect their styling of the name per WP:&.  ONR  (talk)  20:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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.