Talk:Marge Simpson in: "Screaming Yellow Honkers"

message: I'd like to note here (just to prevent any concerns of "GA corruption") that I asked Juliancolton to provide an honest, unbiased and fair GA review of the episode over IRC. Seeing as how he recently reviewed another GAC worked on by Ctjf83 and I, I'd like to clarify this matter to avoid suspicion. And if, in the future, I do ever review any of his GACs (even though I don't really review GACs) that it will be a fair and unbiased one. I've asked Julian to kindly agree to this by signing. Cheers, Qst (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'll be providing a review shortly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Marge Simpson in: "Screaming Yellow Honkers". Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=2288
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, DangerousJXD. I see you reverted one of my edits to re-match the article title. I thought that MOS:DOUBLE/MOS:SINGLE would apply because I thought a single quotation mark looks good for an opening sentence. However, the part said it applies to quotations, especially quotations within quotations. Does it apply to titles using quotation marks? --George Ho (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: George Ho, the guideline doesn't detail how this exact situation should be handled and that's probably something that should be rectified. I feel that the guideline as is isn't particularly relevant here. The examples given at MOS:SINGLE pertain to quotations attributed to individuals, whereas the usage of quotation marks here is just quoting the title of the episode, which is obviously standard per MOS:ITAL. MOS:SINGLE could easily be expanded to include information on this exact scenario, and it probably should, considering that this isn't incredibly rare; other instances of this include The Old Man and the "C" Student, Bart Gets an "F", and Bart's Dog Gets an "F", and those are just other episodes of The Simpsons. Those articles all use the method I prefer; keeping it consistent is also important. In regards to why I feel using your preferred method is inappropriate, I feel it's just common sense. If the title of an episode includes some quotation marks, they should be treated as letters, meaning they shouldn't be modified as modifying them is essentially modifying the title of the episode. More significant examples of this include American Dad! and Jeopardy!, where 'American Dad' and 'Jeopardy' are clear cut typos. I will note that I roll over extremely easily when it comes to matters in which I don't have exceptionally strong opinions on, which is virtually everything I do here, so you should keep that in mind. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double or single quotation marks 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Move All - This is a no-good-options consensus which is probably why it has been allowed to go on for so long. Re-listing again would obviously be pointless given the lack of any further !votes since its last relist (and indeed, for more than 20 days). Ultimately there is one oppose !vote, one move-all !vote, and two !votes in favour of moving some but leaving the question of the other open due to lack of sourcing. Clearly there is a consensus that some of these be moved, and I am convinced by Colin M's argument that consistency requires all be moved and so that is the one I am following, as the other two move !votes were not opposed to moving all per se. Please feel free to come and find me on my talk page if you disagree and I'll re-open the discussion. (non-admin closure)  FOARP (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, I voted in favour of the single quotes there, and I also believe they should be used here. 162 etc. (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since no support has been expressed so far, I might withdraw this RM and submit one for that article and  instead. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: To be clear, although I am the proposer of this RM, I don't really have a strong preference about which approach is chosen to resolve the inconsistency. I should be considered more of a proponent for consistency than a proponent of this particular proposed approach. As stated above, I was willing to withdraw this proposal, but then a couple of other people supported it. Per the instructions at WP:RM, a proposer should only withdraw an RM if no support has been expressed. I tend to think that the other approach may actually be better, since that approach seems less error-prone for cross-referencing and it seems less confusing for readers to have the same type of quote marks in the article title and its opening sentence. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 October 2021