Talk:G.U.Y.

Lyrics in external links section

Is the Rock Genius link allowed? --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I simply used that since it was already included in the article. If not allowed, there are plenty of other lyric sites that can be used. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I guess I just don't know which lyrics sites are allowed in the external links section. This does not say. Nor does this. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Manicure

I don't care either way. But MANiCURE or Manicure? The edit warring over it needs to stop. Gloss • talk 17:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The non-stylized version, always. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Manicure. The standard is to not use such stylizations except in said article, like how "P!nk" would just be in the Pink (singer) article and "Ke$ha" in Kesha article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No. 1 in Israel?

Surely the cited chart position should be elaborated on? As it is, this article insinuates that the song reached No. 1 on Israel's official singles sales chart, but that's not the case. It reached No. 1 on Media Forest's "Song - TV" chart, ie. it was the most played music video on Israeli Music Television stations. That's a very different thing to peaking at No. 1 on a country's main singles sales chart. So maybe that should be changed to

Charts (2013–14)	Peak position
Israel (TV Airplay) (Media Forest)	1

or some such to avoid confusion? Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it listed as #1 in the link provided. Pure fancruft. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is, click on Songs - TV. That airplay is part of Media Forest ranking. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks for the pointer, now I see it and take back the "fancruft" comment. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Added lyrics

There's a misunderstanding among some editors that song articles mustn't mention the lyrics of the song. That isn't the case. I have added this In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The lyrics for the song were written by Lady Gaga herself. The title of the song occurs in the phrase:

I wanna be the Girl Under You (oh yeah) / I wanna be your G.U.Y (yeah)

(1) WP:SONG says "However, how much of a song you can quote is open to interpretation, but you should avoid copyright paranoia." Evidently this first line is notable, necessary and key to understanding that Lady Gaga is singing "I wanna be your Gee Yoo Why" not "I wanna be your bloke". So in what format could we best add this? The grey box above probably isn't preferable to the alternative quote indents.
(2) The article is very bulky, a short Lyrics section would be a better way of sectioning existing content about lyrics which seems to be spread randomly in lead and body. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it is completely unencyclopedic, WP:OR and WP:ILIKEIT on your behalf. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Providing a key line from song lyrics is always encyclopedic. If you look at well written song articles, in books on Latin music or Paul McCartney, Nat King Cole or Aerosmith for example you'll relevant lines from lyrics always cited in full song articles, and it can't be WP:OR if it's sourced.

As for WP:ILIKEIT on your behalf. Well that's okay, you are allowed to like things. However in my view the article would benefit from a short Lyrics section to gather existing content about lyrics which seems to be spread through in lead and body in an uncoordinated way. Songs are more than marketing and sales, they also exist as pieces of music with texts. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi:, I agree that a key line from the lyrics especially the Gee Yooo IIII part would be beneficial, but a composition section is already present, who's last para deals with the lyrics. We can surely add it there, provided that we find a reliable source which talks about the opening line. I'm afraid I did not find such a source when I added content to that section, and you are welcome for any help on that. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay so we're reaching some agreement, thanks. I would suggest indenting 2. Recording and composition with 2.1 Lyrics so that the lyrics section is visible. Either at Its composition is reminiscent... or at The song opens... and then insert the "I wanna be the Girl Under You (oh yeah) / I wanna be your G.U.Y (yeah)" in an appropriate light quote template so it is conveniently visible. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I was actually talking about finding a reference about the opening line. If you see the lyrics present in the section are commented on by third party media. We cannot just simply add it for our own preferences since it would be copyvio. And I would like to hear others opinion also since this is not something that we usually do with the song articles. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. The existing chunk "I don't need to be on top to know I'm wanted, 'cause I'm strong enough to know the truth." doesn't actually seem to be there at article linked?

However wn.com article and popcrush.com both include "I wanna be the Girl Under You (oh yeah) / I wanna be your G.U.Y (yeah)". Are either of these sites usable? If they are they explain/illustrate the title's location in the lyrics.

It's only my personal feeling but I tend to think where song title occurs/is explained in lyrics is one of the key notable points within a song's lyrics. In the 60s of course it usually was the first sentence... In ictu oculi (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2014 (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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Asked to provide a rationale, so here it is: supporters cite DIFFCAPS, which is policy and does explicitly state that punctuation can be sufficient to disambiguate. So those opposing who state "punctuation alone cannot disambiguate" (or a variation thereof) are incorrect, as per policy. Likewise I was not convinced by anyone simply stating that punctuation is not a good dab – sure this can be the case, but they didn't give much of rationale behind their opinion, whereas the supporters made a good case for the belief that no one typing in "G.U.Y." in the search box will be looking for anything but this song. I did note the RfD and if this had ended as no consensus we would have defaulted to that consensus, but we didn't so that was moot. Jenks24 (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

---

G.U.Y. (song) → G.U.Y. – I think that this article should be moved to G.U.Y. without the "(song)" because there's no other page called "G.U.Y.". --Relisted. Xoloz (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Fladoodle (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE — User:Super Camille was indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet of disruptive user Shane Cyrus. I have struck out his comments. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe punctuation alone cannot disambiguate an article. Without punctuation, the title would be Guy, which as you can see is a disambiguation page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

*Support. Punctuation can very well disambiguate an article, as seen at G I R L or P.U.P.. Especially as G.U.Y. itself redirects here. this is definitely the term's most common usage.--Super Camille (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. It should redirect to the disambiguation page, per the RfD outcome Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_27#G.U.Y. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. the article is too easy to find, we should be trying to hide articles from readers not label them clearly. Just joking. Oppose ideally this should be G.U.Y. (Lady Gaga song) so that readers could identify it. There's zero downside to having the name of the artist as the name of the artist is the main distinguishing factor. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Clear-cut instance of WP:DIFFCAPS. No other articles that conceivably be called "G.U.Y.", and in fact it's just not plausible that someone would use this capitalization or punctuation looking for anything else at Guy (disambiguation). No point in sending readers to a dead end instead of the only conceivable article they could want.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain, I did not see that in the RM proposal. No one is proposing sending readers to a dead end are they? G.U.Y. already redirects to G.U.Y. song, it will still do so afterwards. All this RM achieves is shortening the title by removing "(song)". How does removing "(song)" benefit anyone in this instance? Who benefits from this move? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Right now, G.U.Y. redirects to Guy, the disambiguation page, not the song. As for who benefits by moving the song to its actual title, it would be everyone who types in or clicks on the spelling "G.U.Y." expecting the one and only thing called that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh I didn't notice Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_27#G.U.Y. despite that it was mentioned above I only saw User:Super Camille's comment earlier. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Cúchullain. WP:DIFFCAPS allows this title, and it makes sense. Further, "(song)" is not required per WP:SONGDAB, as there are no other articles on songs called "G.U.Y." Keep "(song)" as a redirect, though. And feel free to create the "(Lady Gaga song)" title as a redirect, as well - perhaps that will satisfy? Dohn joe (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose in the face of every guideline (alright this might be considered a wasted !vote, but that's not the point) :-

1. A song is an aural item, so how a song is titled is not relevant to WP:DIFFCAPS. Thanks,Another Believer for spotting this.
2. I note, as an aside the nomination is by Fladoodle whose nomination was edited by Super Camille who has a record of only 79 edits. Not really relevant but I hear a few chains being pulled. Fladoodle likes to clear his/her talkpage on a regular basis to hide the complaints...
3. 192 editors have edited this page as G.U.Y. (song) yet none of them have felt the need to raise an RM. Surely this is 192 votes against moving the article? Does this tell us that those of us arguing RMs are wasting our time? After all, it has been at the present location for 6 months without problems.
4. One editor suggests, " feel free to create the "(Lady Gaga song)" title as a redirect" - in which case why not move the article to that namespace and avoid some redirects (Yes, I know redirects are cheap, but what is the point?...)
5. Bearing in mind that the song has sat at the present title for 6 months suggest that those that want to move are being pedantic (a fair and legitimate response to those that have accused those that want clarity as being pedantic!)

If anybody wants to discuss above, please respond on my talkpage, little point in making in mountain out of a molehill, I assume WP:DAB will take precedence over WP:COMMONSENSE, as usual. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as the punctuation is not by itself a good DAB. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 22:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

:: Think about this, If You are looking for what guy refers to, will you type in, G.U.Y.? Nope. This is just pointless.-Super Camille (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary drama over a simple song title. And G.U.Y. does not come up in search also, so moot point. Also, is there sockpuppetry going on here? @XXSNUGGUMSXX:, do we think it is who it is? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure what to say. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 09:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• The sock was caught Snuggums. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Nobody will type in "G.U.Y." when looking for something at Guy (disambiguation). Those who are searching for this song currently go through an extra (unnecessary) click. The status quo has no benefits. In any case, The current title will redirect there. Adabow (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2014 (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.

Problems during shooting

There was some news about staffers at the Castle complaining about Gaga and some things she did. I'll leave it to the main editors of this page to decide whether or not it should be included. (http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/04/lady-gaga-difficult-diva-music-video-shoot/) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Images

The picture showing her artRAVE: The ARTPOP Ball performance was from Donatella, not from G.U.Y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfredium (talk • contribs) 23:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on G.U.Y.. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-rhythmic/future-releases
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.olt20.com/Charts
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219203220/http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=E&current_week=47&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week to http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=E&current_week=47&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist?filter=new

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)