Talk:I ♥ Huckabees

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I ♥ Huckabees → I Heart Huckabees — MoS:TM calls for avoiding characters such as ♥. Some users may have difficulty displaying it in their browsers. Croctotheface 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Oppose. "I ♥ Huckabees" is the correct title as is apparent by the film cover. We should use correct titles unless it is actually not possible to do so. For example, "#9 Dream" is at Number 9 Dream, but this is not a similar situation. — CharlotteWebb 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per CharlotteWebb.--Húsönd 00:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Not only is this likely to cause technical problems, it is also incredibly obnoxious. Recury 17:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per MoS:TM. Clackmannanshireman 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - correctness is far less important than it's given credit for. I Heart Huckabees is perfectly clear, understandable and best of all, typeable. Let's not be obnoxious. Stevage 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, with comment - The title is "I ♥ Huckabees", with a heart, and if we can display it we should; but maybe a note, like the one on IPod, could go at the top of the page saying "The title of this movie is 'I ♥ Huckabees', with a heart symbol; it is also referred to as 'I Heart Huckabees'." Max22 20:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, in case it wasn't clear from my nomination. We make changes to "official" or owner-supported names all the time for the benefit of readibility. It is not analagous to "iPod" for a variety of reasons. See MoS:TM. Croctotheface 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see how it is obnoxious, its accurate. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per MoS:TM. Also, though not directly related to this, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album titles and band names states that Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band)). I think we shouldn't replicate stylized typography in films either. Prolog 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

MoS:TM may not strictly apply here, since it's intended as the guideline for corporations and their registered trademarks. Films can be thought of as artistic works as well as corporate products, and there's a seperate page in the Manual of Style on [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) |naming conventions]] for them. That guide doesn't say much about unusual characters in titles, but by way of precident, we also use Se7en and not Seven for the 1995 David Fincher film, and Clerks. with a "." rather than just Clerks for the Kevin Smith film. As far as the heart character goes, I believe it's more common to be able to display the heart than it is most Asaitic character sets, but we still use these where appropriate. One way or another, the movie's official title has the heart, and major publications seem to have humored them on this a fair amount of the time. As long as there's a redirect at I Heart Huckabees, it seems like using the heart would be following convention. -- Bailey^(talk) 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to say first of all that I do not intend to fight this to the death. However, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) does not seem to address this topic at all. I could understand granting a bit more leeway to film titles than corporate brand names, but I'm inclined to believe that the articles you cite use nonstandard styles because they are were written and are maintained by fans who want to grant their favorite movie and TV shows special treatment. If someone judiciously applied the Manual of Style, I could envision those articles being moved. There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) wherein several editors mentioned that the prohibition on characters such as ♥ should apply to articles such as this one. I'm inclined to agree, so I posted the RM. Croctotheface 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Really, I'm not a fan of using nonstandard names either, especially in cases where an unusual spelling could just as well be considered a typographical idiosynchrocy or a "graphic logo" for the film as a product -- but the precident seems to be genuine -- the examples I gave (as well as others) were the subject of multiple polls and discussion at Wikiproject Films. Adaptation. is another one, using the period as part the full name, which I think is rather silly, but on the flip side, most people reluctantly acknowledge the name eXistenZ for that annoyingly-titled film. In any case, I don't have a strong preference, although I do think the Manual of Style for films should have a concrete rule for the sake of consistancy. I just don't know exactly what the deciding factor should be in these cases, which is why I've abstained from voting here. -- Bailey^(talk) 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a simple rule: Page titles have to be typeable on a US keyboard. iPod, eXistenZ and Adaptation. all pass. The heart symbol doesn't. We may however want to rule out a couple more symbols like backquote (`) and pipe (|) which will probably cause more trouble than they're worth. Stevage 23:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the computer I'm using now displays the title as "I ♥ Huckabees". Recury 02:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it copied the character OK, but it was displayed on that computer as a thick vertical bar. I guess I didn't help my case much with that one, lol... Recury 17:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was, at this time, no consensus. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I ♥ Huckabees → I Heart Huckabees — While I understand this move was brought up only a few months ago, I don't feel the right reasons were mentioned. The "♥" in the poster is simply a different way of writing "Heart". It is much like how P!nk' is a different way of writing Pink. Sure enough, P!nk redirects to Pink (singer). The ♥ is not part of the official name. The film's official site clearly refers to the film as "I Heart Huckabees" (see the title bar) and imdb's and rotten tomatoes' entries refer to the film as "I Heart Huckabees" as well. Therefore, all evidence indicates that the "♥" in the title should be omitted from the article name. Please note this is much like titles written in ALL CAPS or all lowercase - Wikipedia ignores them. (For example, the poster actually says "i ♥ huckabees", but clearly we have decided to change it to "I" and "Huckabees".) Thus, in keeping with Wikipedia policy, but more importantly the ACTUAL title of the movie, ♥ should be changed to "Heart". Bssc81 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

[edit] Survey - Support votes

1. Support as nom. - Bssc81 06:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support: in addition to the reasons given by the nom, the principle of least surprise in article naming says that we should try to ensure that a reader who types a title into the "search" box reaches the proper destination, if possible without a redirect. I hazard that more readers looking for this film will type "I Heart Huckabees" than will figure out how to type the ♥ character so they can type "I ♥ Huckabees". Which, after all, is part of the reasoning behind Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Special characters. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support --Yath 12:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per Special character naming convention and also the nominator's point about the film's official name. 205.157.110.11 14:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Plus, off-hand, who can even type a heart character? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I'm all for maintaining the standard rules (and alphabet) of the English language here. – flamurai (t) 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support per naming conventions. Jonathunder 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, no need to try to replicate logotypes in our article titles. Also, the current title does not display properly in all browsers. Recury 19:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support per MoS:TM. "Official name" rationales have consistently been rejected as reasons to violate the Manual of Style. In this case, there is a legitimate claim that the producers of the film do not regard the heart symbol as better or "official" anyway. Croctotheface 19:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support per nom. and the precentant set at We Love Katamari, which got moved (by a 10-2 vote) for the same reason. TJ Spyke 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Frankly, what imdb.com calls it carries a lot more weight than what the site's official website calls it. We go with the most common, normal, widely used name, and that's clearly "Heart", not "(stupid heart symbol)". And putting a weird symbol in the actual article title is obnoxious. Highly so. Stevage 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support although some persuasive authority suggests that "I ♥ Huckabees" is more correct (see my comments below). The fully English title makes linking easier, which is one of the main ideas of WP:UE. However, the opening sentence should still show this title, much like We Love Katamari does. Support something like Bssc81's proposed "I ♥ Huckabees, pronounced I Heart Huckabees, is a..." Cool Hand Luke 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

1. Strongly Oppose. There is nothing on the movie's official site that refers to the movie, in print, as "I Heart Huckabees". While they sometimes pronounce the title that way, in every instance in print, the name of the film is written "I ♥ Huckabees". See the Production Notes on the official site; they use the heart symbol when referring to the film. The listings of websites unrelated to the producers of the film (those of imdb and rottentomatoes) does not change the actual name of the film. The way that other websites format information for their databases should not affect this decision.

   Follow these steps:

   1) Go to the official site, click "enter site".

   2) Click on the man at the lower left, the one who has an image of a black tree on a yellow background over his eye.

   3) Click the icon to the uppermost right, which is a blue tree in a white circle on an orange background.

   In this instance, the verbalization of "heart" is silenced, and an icon of the heart is made to cover his mouth.

   Also, a simple redirect can easily take care of people who type in I Heart Huckabees, as it is doing right now. Joie de Vivre 19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose I Heart Huckabees redirects here so no problem about people not finding the article. Then, as previously stated, the official name of the movie IS "I ♥ Huckabees". Last, I can't see what's so bothering about ♥.--Húsönd 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
3. 'Oppose' Many proponents of moving to "I Heart Huckabees" do not seem to have grasped that the film is intentionally vague on prounciation. It can be read as LOVE huckabees *or* I HEART Huckabees, the rebus symbol is used in this ambiguous way intentionally. To simply title the article "I Heart Huckabees" would be misleading. 68.37.37.28 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose It's the title of the movie, and WP naming policy only notes that the symbol isn't standard english, and doesn't forbid using it. The symbol certainly seems appropriate, especially if there are redirects from both I Heart Huckabees and I Love Huckabees. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose. The filmakers clearly intended the ambiguity of using a symbol, which is manifest. See above on this talk page where an editor insists the page should be at "heart" or "love" instead of "♥". Newspapers accross the country appear to have accomodated the symbol in reviews and so should we. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Pictorial names. I think the overriding concern in WP:NC is actually using the most familiar form of the name. In print, "Heart" is only seen for the purposes of alphabetizing or due to technical limitations (as in the title bar for websites). And sometimes not even then. Cool Hand Luke 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Switch to support. Cool Hand Luke 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Redirects are cheap. The heart symbol doesn't display in my browser and I'm still voting against this, because the title is intentionally ambiguous. Dekimasu 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I Love Huckabees must be mentioned as a valid alternative. 199.43.32.87 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Húsönd. Khoikhoi 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Husond and 68.37.37.28. This is not phonics-pedia, this is a written article which should reflect the written title, for which there may in fact be no correct pronunciation. — CharlotteWebb 07:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. The heart symbol appears in the official production notes as well as a great many reviews in reputable print publications (examples:[3][4][5]). Generally, Wikipedia doesn't tolerate unusual typography in brand names, but films are generally considered artistic works, even if they are also subject to marketing. Given the nature of the film (dealing largely with corporations and advertising, and having an intentionally postmodern aesthetic) I'm willing to accept that heart in the title is most likely deliberate, and a product of the filmmakers' original artistic intent. That's enough to convince me that we should leave it be, unless we have compelling evidence to the contrary. -- Bailey^(talk) 00:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   In my view, this is the only argument in favor of the heart symbol that I find remotely compelling. However, I think the guidelines should still trump the notion of artistic expression. If we set the precedent that MoS:TM can be ignored because the nonstandard use is artistic, that could call into question whether the MoS should ever really be applied. Who's to say a corporation can't have artistry in mind when desiging their trademarks? Should a company's nonstandard trademark's style be replicated on WP if it sells art supplies but not if it sells fast food? Do we draw the line with films? Music? Books? Television? Video games? This kind of argument basically forces a judgment about what is or is not artistic, while judiciously applying the Manual of Style does not. Croctotheface 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   We can draw the line where other parties also use their nonstandard name, much like with Yahoo! or eBay, and I think we'd go along with even more irregular tradenames. In this case, a surprising number of sources go along with it—about 50% if one counts just reviews and includes those who bracketted the heart. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, very few other parties use the exclamation point that's in Yahoo. I was involved in the discussion about moving that article, it wasn't moved because of the mistaken notions of a bunch of editors who contributed to that article and a closing admin who chose to uphold tyranny of the majority rather than Wikipedia's guidelines. As you may be able to tell, the way Yahoo went troubles me a lot more than this article ever would. On the other hand, "eBay" does not trouble to me because it's not that far off standard English, which would call for the capital to come one letter before it does. (That said, I do write it "Ebay" in my personal correspondence.) For here, the precedent of We Love Katamari, which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned more, strikes me as very compelling, in addition to MoS:TM, accessibility, and even minor league arguments such as "obnoxiousness" and "distraction". Croctotheface 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   As far as setting a prescident goes, I'm not sure that attempting to consider artistic intent is really such a bad thing. Something has to give in our handling of nonstandard film names anyway; right now Clerks is listed as clerks. with a full stop, Alien 3 is listed as Alien³, Pi under π, all of which are topics of perennial, inconclusive debate. In practice, we don't really have a policy here that's effective enough to avoid disruption. In theory, we've got MoS:TM, but in reality, many Wikipedians seem to object to lumping film titles in with trademarks. We could draw a line in the sand here about the heart because it's a special character, and somewhat less typeable than, say, Se7en, but personally, I'd prefer that we actually establish guidelines that consider intent. There's already a seperate section of the MoS that deals with naming conventions for films; it's silent on this subject, but the groundwork is certainly there for treating film titles differently than other trademarks for no other reason than that they are films -- ditto with books, plays, paintings, etc. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, so if people feel there's reason to differentiate here, my feeling is that conceding this and perhaps coming up with guidelines for determining a film's most probably-accurate name (for example, disguishing between a name used in a published shooting script and a graphic logo on an official poster) would lead to the least disruption. In the mean time, I've yet to see a source that gives me reason to doubt the heart is actually part of the name of Huckabees; it's by far and away the most used name for the film unless you specifically discount official sources; and redirects are cheap. To my mind, this doesn't really contradict the spirit of MoS:TM, which seems to punish meaningless promotional typography primarilly because it is meaningless. Huckabees might well be the very best example of the flip side of that equation. -- Bailey^(talk) 04:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose; The director himself says in the commentary that the heart symbol / rebus is an essential reason for his fondness for the title -- if we can display it and redirect searches, I don't see what the problem is. Max22 05:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    Can we display it in such a way that a blind person accessing Wikipedia via a text reader will be able to enjoy the article? I'm more interested in accessibility than in fidelity to alternative typography and trademarks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose for the reasons I mentioned above. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose it's officially the heart symbol ♥ which isn't forbidden, just frowned upon. The symbol is essential to the movie, and usually used in reputable reviews, as another editor mentioned above. Moving to I Heart Huckabees could be wrong, too. Who's to say it shouldn't be I Love Huckabees? Every official written source for the film uses the heart symbol. More leeway should be given to works of art in this area since presentation is essential to a piece of art's whole being. Voretus/talk 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    Why is the heart symbol frowned upon? I suspect it's due to accessibility reasons. Can we be certain that everyone accessing Wikipedia will have a browser that supports that symbol? What about someone using a text reader? It's because of reasons such as this that I think it's best to keep the cute typography to a minimum. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    I also wanted to clear up this misconception that it "could" be I Love Huckabees. As mentioned, the film's own website has in the title bar I Heart Huckabees. imdb and all other "official" sources call it this as well. No respected source calls it I Love Huckabees. I'll also agree with croctotheface, and point out that we have precedents on this matter. We Love Katamari was moved to ignore the heart symbol, and I Love New York ignores the heart symbol as well. I'm not sure why all the support for the heart symbol is only happening here. Bssc81 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• It's worth noting that I agree with the "support" votes in the last vote in their determining that the heart symbol was merely a style like "adidas" or "thirtysomething" that should be ignored on Wikipedia, but wanted to add that all evidence suggests the official title uses the word "Heart". Further, Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Special characters and Wikipedia: Naming conventions (common names) say special characters (like ♥) should be avoided. - this was taken from Talk:We ♥ Katamari, where a similar move is about to pass. - Bssc81 06:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what Bssc81 claims, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says nothing about the use of Unicode symbols. Certainly, it does not say that they "should be avoided". The only thing that Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Special characters says is that they "are not the common English usage"; this does not prohibit their usage. In fact, Wikipedia:Naming conventions actually supports some uses of Unicode symbols. Naming conventions (technical restrictions) gives approval of Unicode symbols in article titles. Also, the decision at Talk:We ♥ Katamari is not "about to pass"; because decisions at Wikipedia are made by consensus, not by a popular vote. Joie de Vivre 21:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Response to Joie de Vivre. Even if you want to debate what the official title is, the heart symbol is in violation of Wikipedia policy (click the links provided below). As well, the production notes use the title "I ♥ HUCKABEES". Why not use the title in all caps, then? Or, as per the promotional poster, in all lowercase? Because Wikipedia has rules independent of how something promotes itself (again, refer to why P!nk got moved). And the ♥ symbol is in violation (not English). Heck, it's why ♥ redirects to Heart (symbol)! Bssc81 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to Bssc81: That is incorrect, this usage does not violate a Wikipedia policy. See comments above. Joie de Vivre 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Special_characters - note "Non-language characters such as "♥", "★", and "*", sometimes found in advertisements or logos, are not the common English usage." It doesn't outright prohibit them, but the point is clear, when used in conjunction with "common names" and "use English". And yes, the decision at Katamari is about to pass, with an overwhelming majority. As in that case, the voting will tell the story here. I'd also like to add that "production notes" is certainly NOT a definitive source for the "official" name of the film. - Bssc81 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Many proponents of moving to "I Heart Huckabees" do not seem to have grasped that the film is intentionally vague on prounciation. It can be read as LOVE huckabees *or* I HEART Huckabees, the rebus symbol is used in this ambiguous way intentionally. To simply title the article "I Heart Huckabees" would be misleading.
  • Wrong. As I mentioned, please check a) the official website, b) the imdb listing, and c) every other credible movie rating website. It is not ambiguous. The title is "I Heart Huckabees", not "I Love Huckabees" or anything other pronunciation. Bssc81 07:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • IMDB lists I Love Huckabees as an alternativce title.
• We Love Katamari was moved. – flamurai (t) 12:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For an example showing the reverse of what the nominator's link purports to prove, see here. In my browser, the heart character can be displayed, just not in the title bar. It shows ups as a box. I speculate that's why Fox has another version of the page with "heart" substituting the movie's correct (and intentionally annoying) name. Cool Hand Luke 07:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding "ambiguity" of title: I'm dumbfounded as to how it's ambiguous. The official website refers to "I Heart Huckabees". The other links I posted above (imdb/rotten tomatoes) do the same. No credible source calls the film "I love Huckabees". I mean, when you verbalize the film's name, what do you say? Or do you just say silent in place of the ♥?There is no ambiguity as to what the ♥ refers to. Also, I am surprised there is so much disagreement considering how easily We Love Katamari passed with an overwhelming majority. Bssc81 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• No actually, what the official site says is ambiguous. As you can see by my link, they're willing to use the symbol even though google doesn't search the heart symbol. I imagine you reached that mirror sice because search engines ignore the symbol. The ambiguity is strong enough that some reviewers note it. About half of them either use the symbol or put "heart" in parentheses or brackets indicating they were unable to figure out how to make a heart, which they percieve to be the correct title of the movie. This reflects common usage, which differentiates this movie from many others with, for example, the title in all caps or lower case. The creators have commented on how they intentionally made it difficult. As Joie de Vivre brilliantly points out above, the site itself censors the title from being pronounced in an interview. If that's not evidence of intentional ambiguity, I can't imagine what you want. There must be some overwhelming consideration that makes critics and promoters do these strange things, and it's because a symbol is actually part of the film's title.
• > I mean, when you verbalize the film's name, what do you say?

I say "I Love Huckabees". Lots of people say I Love Huckabees! I Love Huckabees is listed as an official alternative title on IMDB. That is the whole point - both I Love Huckabees and I Heart Huckabees are correct.

• Frankly, I think there are good reasons to change the title of the article, but if we do we must note that it's at the wrong title. I might be willing to move the page if you dropped the legal fiction the "I Heart Huckabees" is the official name. I will never sign a move request that asserts such because it's flatly wrong. The rational for this title is stronger than Adaptation., which no reviewers used, and certainly better than Æon Flux. It's much, much better than Sign “O” the Times (album), where reviewers tend omit the symbol altogether, and that's the example used by policy. Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd certainly be fine with including something like "I Heart Huckabees, which is often presented as I ♥ Huckabees..." or a similar passage. I have no issue with acknowledging this usage. I also have no interest in arguing over which spelling is "official", as "official name" arguments have tended not to trump the guidelines, all of which seem to support the move. Croctotheface 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Croctotheface. Ultimately, while I continue to believe that the title is "officially" named I Heart Huckabees, it is not ultimately the most important issue. Wikipedia has set guidelines that require use of the most common name, capitalization and dropping of certain words like "the", regardless of what the entity would call itself. For example, Wikipedia does not use the word "the" in ANY university article name, even if its presence is in the "official" school name. (See: the school's seal in University of California, Los Angeles for example.) And as I mentioned a few times, "huckabees" is in lowercase in the poster. Does that mean Wikipedia should do the same? No, because we aren't bound by some "official" name. I'd be ok with the opening Croc just mentioned as well. So Cool Hand Luke, I agree even in the absence of "I Heart Huckabees" as the official title, there are still many reasons to vote in favour of a move. Bssc81 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• But see also The Gambia and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The informal standard seems to be whether the organization can get independent authorities to use the name they dictate, which both the LDS Church and Gambia have had some success it. I really think this is a close call, but I will change my vote for the purpose of consensus if we agree that the opening block should stay as it is, much like how We Love Katamari still uses the correct tradmarked name in the opening block. In my view the symbol version is still most correct, but the article can be under a different heading for the sake of links and WP:UE. Cool Hand Luke 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly can't commit to that, as I don't know whether others will change the title. But for what it's worth, I agree with that (and hopefully you change your vote). I think it should open "I ♥ Huckabees, pronounced I Heart Huckabees, is a..." -Bssc81 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• >[or a similar passage.] - It would need to read "I Heart/Love Huckabees, written as I ♥ Huckabees...". User:199.43.32.87|199.43.32.87]] 15:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Bssc81 canvassed some of the above users [6] [7] [8] [9] at a time where opposition was building.--Húsönd 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry, is that against the rules? I "canvassed" the people who had previously voted support in the last vote. I figured they'd want to vote again. I don't think that should invalidate their opinions - they are legitimate votes (ie not sockpuppet votes). I didn't know that if I did that, I'd have to let everyone who voted know. If this somehow invalidates the vote, then I apologize. Bssc81 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

   My understanding (which is admittedly not very complete) is that it is not proper for an editor to only inform people of a vote who could be expected to vote a certain way. However, I can't imagine that it would somehow invalidate what users who were canvassed actually have to say about the issue. In this case, if anything, it seems that there is some movement of people into the "move" camp from the "don't move" camp. Croctotheface 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

   It is extremely frowned upon, as such behavior strongly disrupts Wikipedia's natural consensus building system (see Wikipedia:Canvassing). Calling back users who had previously supported this will naturally make this discussion lean towards support. Especially if, and as you can see, those currently opposing are not drawing previous opposers.--Húsönd 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

   Note to closing admin I have now informed users who had previously opposed this move in order to establish a rough canvass equilibrium.--Húsönd 20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

   I didn't know it was an issue but now understand why it was. Had you not contacted them, I would have to clear this up. Thanks for doing it. Bssc81 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I Heart Huckabees and I Love Huckabees both redirect here anyway, I simply have to file this under "who in their right mind really gives a shit?" Is the existing title really harming anything? Considering that a person will get to the correct article no matter what they type, is using the heart symbol actually causing any meaningful problems? No. So why bother wasting everybody's time with a meaningless debate over it? Bearcat 03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Accessibility. It's worse to have articles that a blind person accessing Wikipedia via a text reader will not be able to understand. It's worse to have an article that will be filled with question marks or little box characters on some poor old 1990s computer that doesn't make the heart symbol, but which is the only way some kid in Uganda has access to the knowledge base that is Wikipedia. Accessibility is a higher priority than fidelity to trademarks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed. I've removed the move request from Wikipedia:Requested moves, due to the lack of consensus here. —Cleared as filed. 03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the proper procedure. The move request does not go away - it is labeled simply as "no consensus" here. Please undo that. Bssc81 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.