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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. Primary topic questions can be addressed with a new RM if required.
Jenks24 (
talk) 12:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Move to
You Can Count on Me (film) - there is no primary topic here ; and "on" is a preposition in the sentence, same as lean on the wall, rely on me, count on me.
In ictu oculi (
talk) 13:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Support capitalization of "Count On", per
MOS:CT, due to its apparent usage here as a phrasal verb. I don't currently have a strong opinion about the
PRIMARYTOPIC question posed by IIO (which is a separate matter from what was raised by the nominator here), but I'm leaning toward Tbhotch's view on that due to the Oscar nominations, etc. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 20:17, 3 January 2016 (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.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
You Can Count On Me. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
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: page moved. Near unanimous consensus on the grammar, other titles may be moved following subsequent discussions. (
non-admin closure)
SportingFlyerT·C 00:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I processed this thinking it was fairly uncontroversial, but forgot to check the talk page. Because there was a previous move discussion settling on the current capitalization, we may need another discussion to override that. I reverted my changes for now.
ASUKITE 16:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per
MOS:CT. Prepositions are always lowercase in title case, and "on" is a preposition in "You Can Count on Me". The term "phrasal verb" is unfortunately ambiguous, cf. the corresponding
Wikipedia article. The section in MOS:CT about phrasal verbs refers to particle verbs (see footnote [e] on the MOS:CT page), e.g. "give in" or "think over". "in" and "over" are adverb particles in these examples, not prepositions. This is different from prepositional verbs like "pick on", "pass for" or "count on". Here "for" resp. "on" are prepositions, so they need to be lowercased in titles.
Darkday (
talk) 13:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per Darkday.: "on me" is a prepositional phrase if ever there was one. Plus both Rotten Tomatos and IMDb use the proposed title (with lowercase "on"; you have to do a search in Rotten Tomatos to see it).
Dicklyon (
talk) 18:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support This RM hinges entirely on whether "count on" is a verb + particle or verb + preposition construction. Under the MOS, the former construction demands "on" to be capitalized while the latter demands no capitalization. We can set up a test suggested by information
here, which is explicitly linked in the MOS. Comparing "count on" (to mean "rely on") with the "take on" suggested earlier: if "on" is a particle, it will allow the phrasal verb object to be either before or after it. I could take on a guy or take the guy on (particle phrasal), but I can only count on (i.e. rely on) the guy to do something ("counting the guy on" being either ungrammatical or, if used as a variant of "count one in", meaning something else entirely), implying that "count on" is not a verb + particle construction and thus should not be subject to the associated capitalization. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿) 20:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support. Mellohi!'s analysis is correct; this is a verb + preposition construction, not a verb + particle, so use lower case. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:35, 1 April 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.