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 NEXT (Korean band). via consensus in compromises. As Amakuru points out, N.EX.T with or without an ending "." is the preponderant form in our sources. But as SMcCandlish points out, MOS:ACRO tells us we should not use periods in acronym titles, and this is an acronym per our sources. it seems the most persuasive arguments here involve resolving the strange periodization of the current title, and this accomplishes that well. This satisfies the most pressing points made by all participants, and complies with our policies. It is, as a result, the consensus via compromise. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N.EX.T → Next (Korean band) – lack of English sources but band wasn't a real acronym more a stylism, and simply referred to as "Next" in Korean pronunciation and running sources - see also current RM at talk:NEXT (Chinese band). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. – robertsky (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose given that the name is treated like an acronym in this case (for "New Experiment Team"). See also M3GAN for a similar case. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which you yourself closed and moved as a non-admin. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...there was general consensus to move there anyway. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Looking at sources, I don't really see any usage of the proposed capitalisation, "Next", therefore that would be a Wikipedia neologism if we went down that route. I do, however, see a split in sources between the current "N.EX.T",[1][2] and "N.E.X.T.",[3][4] so there might be a case for moving to N.E.X.T., but probably not enough to be sure a move away from the stable title is warranted at this point. Note that the current title also has the advantage of WP:NATURALDIS and WP:SMALLDETAILS.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ebbedlila (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to give a reason though. No evidence in favour of the move has been presented, and I have posted links to sources above which demonstrate that the current name is correct. This is WP:NOTAVOTE, and if you want to see the article moved, some refutation of the evidence needs to be presented.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ebbedlila: Amakuru is correct that you need to provide some rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per MOS:TM; we do not mimic marketing stylizations that don't convey a semantic meaning (like being an acronym, which this is not).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Use "NEXT" disambiguated as necessary. At least one source confirms it is an acronym after all, but per MOS:ACRO we do not use dots in acronyms. (If we were to keep the dots, do it as "N.EX.T." as BarrelProof suggests. But we should not be keeping the dots. An extraordinary case would have to be made to do so.) Also, the Korean and arguably "real" name of the band is 넥스트, which does not have dots in it (and would be rendered "Next" or as an acronym "NEXT" in the Latin character set).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a marketing stylization, it's the actual name of the band.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, or at least move to N.EX.T. (with a dot at the end). The lack of English-language sources means we don't really have clear guidance from sources, so we should pick a title that follows ordinary English language convention, and the current title isn't that. It's clearly meant to convey the "Next" meaning, aside from the stylization. The lack of a dot at the end is especially unusual, and some sources do put a dot at the end (e.g. this and this). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]