Talk:Save the Kids token

On 2 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Save The Kids. The result of the discussion was moved to Save The Kids token.

Requested move 2 October 2022[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 Save The Kids token. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 23:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Kids Token → Save The Kids – Seems to be what sources call it. Failing that, move to Save The Kids token, since "token" isn't consistently capitalized in sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Too similar to Save the Children and other charitable movements. "Token" was how it was mentioned in the original video published by the token. Support alt proposal to un-capitalize "Token". InvadingInvader (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with InvadingInvader that tokem should be uncapitalized — Python Drink (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New page title[edit]

Admittedly, I should have put a rationale for this -- I try to be bold, but unfortunately, I don't always justify it as I should. I think "Save the Kids" is shorter and more to the point, since this article is not only about the token, but also the scam that went along with it. Furthermore, of the ten sources, four of them merely call it "Save the Kids" in the headline title with no "token" beside it.

Thus, I think it would be better off at this new title, but if you feel the need to revert per WP:STATUSQUO, go for it. If that happens, I will open a requested move instead, as I admittedly should have gotten consensus before moving this unilaterally. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. See previous RM. 162 etc. (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that above, and since there was only one vote, I didn't see a problem with moving this. I concede the point, though. Sorry for any inconvenience. JeffSpaceman (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]