Talk:FilmAffinity
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
Popularity
They are popular [] according to the Nielsen Ratings? I don't understand. Nielsen Ratings are for TV, as far as I know. Ben T/C 03:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived 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: No consensus to move. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
FilmAffinity → Filmaffinity – Filmaffinity is correct. See picture. Thanks.--777sms (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- FilmAffinity sure, Film Affinity equally OK, Filmaffinity is not a word and is obvious MOS:TM.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Filmaffinity" is better than "FilmAffinity" per the old CamelCase guidelines (which were changed to allow camelcasing) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Film Affinity might be better. The use of differing colors for the two words in the logo implies separate words, and most variants seem awkward. These are not individual syllables being used to create a compound. It is desirable to avoid purely stylistic formatting used for decorative purposes to create a distinct logo, per MOS:TM. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
FilmAffinity
Is film affinity a reliable or reputable source for edits on Wikipedia. B.R. Esquivel 06:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEBO1986 (talk • contribs)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.