Talk:B.A.P.S.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger[edit]

Merge Black American Princess, an article with trivial content and little linkage, into B*A*P*S. Antennaman 19:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge I'm sorry, but an independent term should not be merged into a film article. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The movie is not the concept. Atlant 13:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. The title of B*A*P*S is based on the term Black American Princess, but they are not one in the same. Since it's been over a month since this merger discussion began, I'm going to remove the tags. If someone disagrees feel free to put them back up. Radagast83 19:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 2019[edit]

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: moved to B.A.P.S. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 02:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B*A*P*S → B.A.P.S – I believe the title should have periods instead of asterisks. Asterisks are not used on the poster, and "B.A.P.S" is used in publications during the film's theatrical release (examples: 1 2 3 4 5). I do see some publications use the asterisks version, like 1 and 2, but they are more recent and could be influenced by this Wikipedia title. Thank you in advance for any comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to B.A.P.S. or B.A.P.S. (film) (with a dot at the end of the title), per Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, Cinemascore, Roger Ebert, Ebert's Most Hated, and the ordinary English punctuation convention. Wikipedia guidelines say that when the sources are mixed, we should choose the form that resembles ordinary English. Unfortunately, I notice that B.A.P.S. currently redirects to a different topic – namely, Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. The article about that topic doesn't actually use "B.A.P.S." (with dots), so I'm not sure whether that is a serious conflict or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I believe either one would be appropriate. The disambiguation might be the best of the two options to avoid confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that all five of the links provided with the RM proposal above use "B.A.P.S." (with a dot at the end of the title). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I had missed that before. I agree that the dot should be at the end of the title. Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: Since I doubt either move would be considered controversial, I am wondering if I can close this discussion and just move the page. I think using "B.A.P.S." should be fine as the current article it is redirected towards does not use this acronym with dots. Just wanted to ping you to get your opinion about it. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to be conservative and wait. This will probably be closed quickly anyway, as it has been open for a full week. My suggestion at this point is for it to be moved to B.A.P.S. without worrying about Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, since we don't have any indication that the name of the religious organization is commonly styled using dots. It can always be moved again later if that turns out to be a problem, and a quick web search does not indicate a problem. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, and it is best to err on the side of caution. That sounds like the best and most appropriate course of action. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2019 (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.