Talk:US toy retail giant Toys 'R' Us files for liquidation in United States

Name

I just want to point out for the record, the quotation marks in Toys "R" Us are part of the official name of the company. --SVTCobra 12:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Our practice modernly has been to use single-quotes in headlines for what we'd use double-quotes for in the body of an article; I'm considering whether or not these double-quotes are subject to that transformation. --Pi zero (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I should think not. We are not talking about their use for quoting something, but rather as non-letter characters, much like ₹ or $. --SVTCobra 14:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm, that's the argument on that side, yes, without which I wouldn't raise the question at all. On the other hand, functionally the quotes aren't arbitrary symbols, they're there to indicate the letter should be pronounced by name, and as functional punctuation they would be subject to the convention. Looking through references on Wikipedia, I see headlines with Toys 'R' Us, Toys "R" Us, and of course Toys R Us. I like the single quotes because when one then cites the article, it comes out right with double quotes around the headline and single quotes within (which, come to think, is likely a significant motive for our convention). --Pi zero (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Articles about Toys "R" Us

In addition to the related news, I see only

• "Gunman opens fire inside store in California, USA" — Wikinews, November 28, 2008

--Pi zero (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4390445 [Passed]

Revision 4390445 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Somehow the required elements of {{date}} and {{haveyoursay}} were missing. Ordinarily if I saw that, I'd expect to be dealing with a newcomer who doesn't know to use the article-creation form at WN:WRITE; in this case, perhaps an omission in an experimental article-creation tool? The WSJ source is paywalled, with only about the first paragraph and a half visible. I left it listed as it was apparently used, but it was of no use to me during review. I cut out most of a paragraph as unverifiable; some of that could be related, though I'd have thought the bit attributed to CNBC would be in the CNBC source. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4390445 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Somehow the required elements of {{date}} and {{haveyoursay}} were missing. Ordinarily if I saw that, I'd expect to be dealing with a newcomer who doesn't know to use the article-creation form at WN:WRITE; in this case, perhaps an omission in an experimental article-creation tool? The WSJ source is paywalled, with only about the first paragraph and a half visible. I left it listed as it was apparently used, but it was of no use to me during review. I cut out most of a paragraph as unverifiable; some of that could be related, though I'd have thought the bit attributed to CNBC would be in the CNBC source. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

The WSJ source was for redundancy. USAToday "misidentified the type of meeting where the CEO’s speech took place" (their own words) and rewrote the story last night leaving only the first paragraph intact. Thanks for the cut out. --Gryllida (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)