Talk:G.U.Y.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

*Support. Punctuation can very well disambiguate an article, as seen at

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Support per Cúchullain.
  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)[reply
  ]
• 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

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

:: 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]

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

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

• Support Nobody will type in "G.U.Y." when looking for something at
  Adabow (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2014 (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.