The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: No clear consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.162.3 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

Awkward. (TV series) → Awkward. – or simply Awkward. Both "Awkward" and "Awkward." redirect here, per WP:PRECISION the "(TV series)" is useless. 189.239.71.250 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. While normally it would make sense to attach "(TV series)" to a common-word title, unless there's actually something to distinguish it with there's no point in doing so. If there is no need to make "Awkward" or "Awkward." a disambiguation page then the series article might as well have either of those, with "Awkward." being the more accurate one. Knight of Truth (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. {{See Wiktionary}} can be used as a hatnote template. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An IP earlier today changed Awkward into a Dab page. I've undone the edit on the basis that this page is currently under discussion. France3470 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There is no need for the unnecessary (TV series) disambiguation. Move to Awkward. as this is the official title of the series and most precise. I think preserving Awkward as a redirect here is unproblematic for the time being but I am wary of moving the title to Awkward. I don't think such a move is necessary and I agree with the suggestion by Knight of Truth that using the "." is more accurate. As a separate point, the need for a dab page is very marginal at the moment, and I think the hatnotes cover any need to disambiguate fairly well. Awkward (album) is the only other truly ambiguous title and while socially awkward exists as a redirect it doesn't lead anywhere which explains the term. France3470 (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; title should be Awkward (TV series) (per MOS:TM) with Awkward a disambiguation page. Powers ^T 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't beleive a "." (period) really counts as falling under MOS:TM it certainly isn't going to present any logistical challenges. We often allow "." as the first character for articles, as well as part of titles (W.A.S.P. Keith A. Smith etc.) and I don't see how this is much different. However, ignoring this Awkward should not be a dab page, there might be marginal justification for Awkward (disambiguation) but as far as I can see the primary topic of Awkward is the TV series. The dictionary definition does not have an article (and should not per WP:NOTDIC) and the other possibilities (all 2) don't seem to justify being the WP:Primarytopic or needing to be disambiguated from a dab page. France3470 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the period at the end goes, I think the article should generally use it without (as per MOS:TM), but the first mention as well as the article title should include the period; MOS:TM specifically allows this usage. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TM recommends that the affected title be used only once, in the lead, and does not "specifically allow" it to be used as a title. Powers ^T 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I agree with Powers. My reading of MOS:TM is that the title should not have the full stop and that "Awkward." should be mentioned once in the lead. Also, there is no way that this obscure TV show is the primary topic of "Awkward". Think to yourself: what would most editors expect to see when they type "Awkward" in the search box (and keep in mind that the majority of readers do not know about our policies such as WP:NOTDIC). Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of surprised myself that there wasn't anything else that might fill the space besides an album and this series. But if this isn't the primary topic, then what is? I'd be perfectly fine with keeping this as "Awkward. (TV series)" if we had something better to put under "Awkward"/"Awkward." or somewhere useful for that to redirect to, but no article immediately comes to mind. Knight of Truth (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we'd have a real article at awkwardness and redirect awkward there. It seems like there ought to be sources out there somewhere. Powers ^T 14:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Awkwardness is an important and well-documented social and psychological phenomenon, and is also a very common comedic device. There is certainly room for broad coverage of the concept. bd2412 T 15:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I suppose that with a lot of work on Awkwardness, it would be better for Awkward to redirect there and for this article to remain where it is. I change my support to an Oppose. Knight of Truth (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support We use parenthetical disambiguation only when natural disambiguation is "not possible," according to WP:PRECISION. Here there isn't even another article to disambiguate from. Kauffner (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move to Awkward. per nom and France3470. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 06:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Awkward. and redirect Awkward to Awkwardness with a dabhat there. This is per WP:PRECISION and precedents such as Oklahoma! – a musical vs Oklahoma – a state. I don't think MOS:TM applies here; it seems quite accepted and normal on Wikipedia for titles of works that include punctuation according to normal English usage to be used for titles as they are, such as Oklahoma!, Help! (album), Help! (film) ...And Then There Were Three..., if.... etc.. The state of an article is not really a criterion for choosing a primary topic, so Awkward should redirect to Awkwardness. A disambiguation page does not seem necessary as there appear to be only two candidate articles for Awkward. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The fullstop is inconspicuous; the name needs a proper disambiguator. I (and likely many more) had never heard of the TV series, but I have had too much experience of people and things being awkward. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no move. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward (TV series) → Awkward
Awkward → Awkward (disambiguation)

Extras, Dead Set, Friends, Dumped, Happy Days - no brackets. Also, have a look at the article traffic for Awkwardness (2,030) and the traffic for Awkward (TV series) (82,807). Crystal clear difference. Unreal7 (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can you use the proper RM format? You nominate quite a few things, and it seems to be that only your nominations are incorrectly formatted, and thus making RMbot malfunction. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why this is such a big deal. But fine. Unreal7 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The disambiguation parenthetical is unnecessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose; Awkward should be redirected to dab page. I'm going to create Awkward (disambiguation) because there are other meanings as well. --KarlB (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only seeing 2 articles listed at the disamb page. With only 2, a disambig page is unnecessary and a hatnote at the top pointing to the other article is all that's needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I don't associate this familiar word with a TV series that I'm not familiar with. Seriously, who else does? Even a dab page has a link to Wiktionary. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree with you that very few people are likely to associate any word with a TV series that they've never heard of. However, the fact that you have not heard of this show bears no relevance to whether other people have. (I have no opinion on the move or the show myself, but I couldn't resist commenting on the spectacularly poor reasoning that "if I'm not familiar with this topic, obviously nobody else is, either.") Theoldsparkle (talk)
• Oppose. Disambiguation page has been created, and no indication that this topic is primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello?! Look at the traffic. Unreal7 (talk)

  We need to use some common sense here. Awkward is a common, plain English word and is obviously the primary topic regardless of page stats. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello. You're right, the traffic might indicate primacy for the TV series. I missed the stats when I !voted, and I've struck that part of the reason. I'm still opposed, though, on the "long-term significance" criterion, or as I think of it, avoiding surprise on the part of a reader entering "Awkward" and landing at a TV series they are quite possibly unaware of. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think everyone is aware of Extras, Dumped or Neighbours? Unreal7 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best recent example is Big, a result I also happen to disagree with. As for the others, I think Neighbours should be moved. It seems also that plural somehow helps (e.g. Friend vs Friends). --KarlB (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct regarding plurals. If the nom wants to compare words to Awkward, he should be comparing Extra, Dump and Neighbour. Dead Set and Happy Days are also wrong; it should be Dead, Set, Happy and Day. You can't use combinations of words. The nom has also misread the page view stats, which show that people looking for this series are doing so by coming here, not by looking for it at Awkward. Since Wikipedia is built for readers, not editors, we need to cater for our readers and clearly they see this article as being in the right place. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts as a plural example and Inception as well as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC example, although plurals aren't always accepted as good enough disambiguation. For example Skins (TV series), which I requested drop the TV series but everyone rejected. Unreal7 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar vs Avatar (2009 film). --AussieLegend (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - There is no one here associating the word with a television series, which may be obscure in the next ten years. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops.. double vote. --George Ho (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per JHunterJ. Jenks24 (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Awkward. would be better for the article. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We need to use some common sense here. The TV series is not the primary topic for the word "Awkward". --AussieLegend (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per common sense. First Light (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two pages called "Awkward", an unsourced album by Ty, whose own page doesn't even have any sources, and a famous TV show that is still going on. There's also includes a song, that wasn't even released as a single, from an album that doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Come on people, how the hell is this not the primary topic? Unreal7 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Clearly the primary meaning is the adjective. Never even heard of the TV series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be moved to Awkward. with a period because that's the name of the show. 68.190.166.40 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.