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: Closing as no consensus. ( non-admin closure) —  Andy W. ( talk ·  ctb) 20:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

V.A.M.P. (G.I. Joe) → V.A.M.P. – Unnecessary disambiguation. – Gorobay ( talk) 15:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply

This is a contested technical request ( permalink). Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 20:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Gorobay and In ictu oculi: There are various VAMP abbreviations. In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Is there anything else called V.A.M.P. though? Gorobay ( talk) 17:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Oppose "V.A.M.P." should redirect to the disambiguation page, since using English grammar rules, several of the items can be properly spelled that way. -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 05:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, see disambiguation page. In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom and this RfC. Note that V.A.M.P currently redirects here. Ppp ery 19:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• support - It doesn't make sense for V.A.M.P to redirect here instead of vice versa. The article could use a For other uses see hatnote pointing at the DAB page. Argento Surfer ( talk) 20:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Support only topic consistently used with this styling. SST flyer 09:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Oppose due to multiple entries using the "VAMP" acronym on the disambiguation page. Since every capitalized letter in the acronym discussed here is followed by a period, the stylization is not distinct enough to distinguish itself from entries on the disambiguation page that are also all-caps acronyms. (For example, if the stylization of this subject was "VA.MP" or "V.AM.P", my rationale regarding the title's ambiguous stylization would not apply.) Steel1943 ( talk) 20:09, 3 October 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.