Talk:Poot!

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Comics: British Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by British comics work group.

Requested move 20 July 2015

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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poot! (comics) → Poot! – Is the exclamation point at the end of the title natural disambiguation? (By the way, I'm neutral on this. The alternative would be to create Poot! as a redirect to Poot.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Especially because this is the only topic on the disambiguation page Poot named "Poot", and because someone typing in a "!" very likely knows it belongs to this topic. Dohn joe (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A google search with an exclamation mark returns the same results as without it, therefore people looking for the Wikipedia entry on the comic would use the comic term to find it. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS prior to recent edits. The encyclopedia generally goes by reliable sources. User:Steel1943 given that it's impossible to search for ! in Google Books do you have evidence that ! is always and only used with this topic? one academic source here doesn't have the !, this is the problem with fanatical disambiguation with ! . and other blips and marks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: Nope, I'm neutral on this move. The alternative to this would to be to create Poot! as a redirect to Poot. I really don't have any evidence or any care either way, but I do believe that one of these needs to be done since Poot! is currently nonexistent. Steel1943 (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodo, then make Poot! redirect to Poot. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Exclamation mark is sufficient disambiguation, per User:Dohn joe's argument above. Furthermore, the additional parenthetical is unnecessary, redundant, and extraneous: even without the parenthetical, the disambiguation page contains a descriptor phrase identifying the subject as a comic. Someone attempting to find this Wikipedia article via a search engine using the two words "ping" "comic" or "ping" "comics" would be led here regardless of whether the parenthetical is present since search engines also take into account page text rather than just the article title. And finally, that searching for "!" cannot be done in Google Books is irrelevant, as ability to search out the subject in Google Books does not impact ability to find this article in Wikipedia, which is what disambiguation in Wikipedia is concerned with. —Lowellian (reply) 14:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS and the above arguments. It seems unlikely readers will type in the ! intending any of the other topics.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:05, 26 July 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.