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 section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Since the first letter of article titles is not case-sensitive in mediawiki, this would effectively result in a title of XXx, with DISPLAYTITLE used to show the stylized title. We rely on the WP:COMMONNAME rather than the stylized version, and there is some consensus that the current XXX style is preferable. Most of the contributors to this discussion were more concerned with consistency than style, so the article XXx: Return of Xander Cage should probably be moved to the uppercase version as well. I have not done this myself, as that article wasn't part of this nomination and there was no message posted there regarding this discussion. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Brad v🍁 04:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• XXX (film series) → xXx (film series)
• XXX (2002 film) → xXx (2002 film)
• XXX: State of the Union → xXx: State of the Union

– This film series is stylized as xXx. The articles connected with the film series are inconsistent in whether or not they use xXx or XXX. While the above article titles use XXX, they use xXx within the article body. Furthermore, xXx: Return of Xander Cage uses this style. There is a sequel in the works, and while this does not warrant an article yet, the trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter have used xXx when discussing the franchise. Furthermore, "XXX" is commonly associated with pornography, so having xXx for these non-pornographic films would be a clearer distinction. (As an example of the confusion, XXX (film series) is unusually high on article traffic statistics for this reason.) And lastly, having all these articles use xXx would be WP:CONSISTENT. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 20:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 05:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Move per Betty Logan. We should ignore the stylization. -- Bsherr ( talk) 04:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

UPDATE: Not sure why the above shows XXx (2002 film). I have put in xXx (2002 film). Upon research, I've found that the use of DISPLAYTITLE would ensure a small "x" at the beginning. Also, pinging NinjaRobotPirate and Certes since they discussed the styling above. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 20:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The {{ no redirect}} template was converting the first letter to uppercase in xXx (2002 film) (and only in that one). I reformatted the above to not use that template, so that it will properly illustrate the proposal. — BarrelProof ( talk) 14:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support. I don't see any technical problems with either title. {{ Lowercase title}} also produces a small initial but we probably need DISPLAYTITLE anyway to italicise just part of the title. Generally we don't follow affectations of style, and MOS could be interpreted as recommending Xxx. On the other hand, sources use xXx and there are precedents for titles to uppercase just the second letter ( iPhone, eBay…), whilst XXX might be confused with pornography. Consistency has many benefits, and xXx looks to be a strong candidate. Certes ( talk) 21:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

In the light of subsequent comments, I would equally support a consistent change to XXX. Certes ( talk) 14:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Yeah, I think you have to use {{ lowercase title}} (or the displaytitle magic word) to override the default behavior, which automatically converts the first character to uppercase. I don't think I've ever really cared about the title styling. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Not so fast: The title is pronounced "Triple-X", and the sources do not use the "xXx" styling consistently. For example, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, AllMovie, the British Board of Film Classification, and Roger Ebert do not use it (at least not for the 2002 film). It is not true that the XXX (2002 film) article uses "xXx" within the article body. Outside of the first sentence, and in nearly all of that article's cited sources, it is "'XXX". Please also see the two prior RM discussions recorded at Talk:XXX (2002 film), one of which resulted in the move to the current title. The three titles already seem adequately disambiguated from XXX rating. Perhaps the "xXx" styling was less used for the first film than for the others – it may have only been used on the poster art and not for other material. Box Office Mojo only uses the "xXx" styling for the second film in the series ( here). Where the styling is used, it really looks more like it is using small caps rather than lowercase. — BarrelProof ( talk) 14:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  I find that it's a mixed bag across the coverage about the films and the franchise. We should commit to one approach or the other. If the past year's sources in regard to the fourth film's development all refer to it as xXx, that seems the more appropriate retrospective takeaway. Unless you don't think we should bother with consistency at all? Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 15:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  I haven't yet tried to determine whether "xXx" seems desirable or not for the newer members of the series, but I do have the impression that applying it to the 2002 film might basically be historically inaccurate. Based on the cited sources, I believe the first film was basically originally presented to the public and discussed by critics as "XXX" or "Triple X", not "xXx". The people who produced and marketed the later films may have tried to change the branding later, but if that is the case, I don't think it makes sense to apply the newer styling retroactively. I think the "ordinary English" styling rule would favor "XXX" over "xXx" by default (if pronounced as "Triple X" and if there is inconsistency in the sources). One way to achieve consistency is to leave the names of all three articles exactly the way they are and move the xXx: Return of Xander Cage article instead! Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., MOS:TM and WP:TITLETM) say that when the usage in independent reliable sources is inconsistent, we should use ordinary English styling. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Lean to not support - unnecessary work and it's just as easy to use XXX and say in the lede XXX, sometimes stylized as xXx, is a 2002 .... TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  So you favor writing XXX everywhere on all related articles? Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 19:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  Whichever is less work - changing to XXX or changing to xXx. I'm not familiar with the articles so I can't tell which is better. If we change it to xXx then we have to do a move - if we leave it as XXX, then we only have to say "sometimes stylized as xXx" in the first sentence. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose "xXx" is clearly a stylation, and a silly one at that. Furthermore, for the initial 2002 film, it wasn't the name when it was released; Roger Ebert and the New York Times both used "XXX". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  power~enwiki, then do you want all articles to have XXX or not? Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 03:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  I know nothing about the 2017 film and can't make a definitive statement on that. I think my !vote was perfectly clear that I oppose the proposed page moves, and that the current "XXX" names should remain in place. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  I'm asking for a consensus either for xXx or XXX across the board so the article titles are WP:CONSISTENT. If you don't think they should be consistent, you can say so. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 03:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support WP:CONSISTENT: either all articles at "XXX", or all "xXx" – pick one. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I suggest that if we think it is desirable to pick one form or the other one, we should pick the other one (i.e., not move these three articles). — BarrelProof ( talk) 00:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Clarify: support moving xXx: Return of Xander Cage → XXX: Return of Xander Cage as per Betty Logan and WP:CONSISTENCY. Clearly, that's the most straightforward solution here... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all moves. The fact is, "xXx" is a clear stylization that not all reliable sources use. ONR  (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  @ Old Naval Rooftops: So you don't want any WP:CONSISTENCY at all? Leaving xXx: Return of Xander Cage where it is? Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 13:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support per Certes mainly. Sources are split between xXx and XXX, which are technically both stylisations, and I prefer the former for being less ambiguous. Daß  Wölf 02:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Move xXx: Return of Xander Cage → XXX: Return of Xander Cage. Usage is inconsistent across reliable sources but I see no good reason for not applying WP:CONSISTENT in this scenario. Since "XXX" appears to be three X's rather than a symbol it would appear that "xXx" is a stylisation. Ultimately stylisation seems to make no difference to text searches here on Wikipedia and on Google (xXx brings up the same porn sites as XXX) and I think Wikipedia should avoid adopting stylisations unless there is a very strong COMMONNAME argument for doing so. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support as long as it will be xXx not XXx עם ישראל חי ( talk) 23:21, 26 November 2018 (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.