Talk:A Boogie wit da Hoodie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requested move 28 August 2018[edit]

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: Not moved. ToThAc (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A Boogie wit da HoodieA Boogie Wit Da Hoodie – "wit" and "da" do not necessarily refer to the preposition/article "with" and "the", hence there is no need to capitalize as they're part of the name. The editor whose username is Z0 10:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't understand the reasoning. It seems obvious that "wit da" stands for "with the" here. What else should it mean? Darkday (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    Just because the words look similar doesn't mean they mean the same. "Wit Da" could be a middle name or a name of the Hoodie. There is no evidence of it being "with the" and since a majority of reliable sources spell it in capitalized form, it should be used per WP:COMMONNAME. The editor whose username is Z0 04:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If 99.9% of the time, wit da means the preposition and article with the, then that should be the default, common sense position. If you think this is a weird 0.1% case, then the burden of evidence is on you to prove it (e.g. with him saying the meaning in an interview or something, which is already kind of explained in the article). We shouldn't capitalise it just cuz there might be an odd 0.1% chance that the word isn't used how it normally is. WP:Commonname and capitals are different things. The current title is the common name regardless of whether it's in caps or not. Other sources using caps is irrelevant as they have their own Manual of Style. Spellcast (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What evidence do you have to say that "wit da" means "with the"? It might be known as an informal slang in some areas but again, just because they look and sound similar doesn't mean they're automatically presumed to mean the same. Also adding up the fact that most reliable sources use the capitalized form instead of the lower. Wikipedia does not use or recognize informal language. The editor whose username is Z0 04:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What if the stage name is changed to, for example, "A Boogie wiz ta Hoodie" or "A Boogie widde Hoodie"? Would you argue that it's a slang for "with the"? It might seem obvious to you but it's not the case for most of other Wikipedia readers. The editor whose username is Z0 05:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Who is changing the stage name? I don't see the relevance of this argument.
If you view source at the artist's official web page, there are two alt tags that provide alternate text for two images. The images show two different sizes of the artist's face and the artist's name in text "A Boogie Wit da Hoodie". The alt text for these images is ""aboogie with the hoodie", so ignoring the misspelling of aboogie, we can see that "wit da" is understood by the artist's webpage author to be equivalent to "with the". We should also note that the images have lower case "da", just like BBC, Amazon and Spotify. Binksternet (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The relevance of that is if you think the first name is acceptable as a preposition-article, would you also think the example names are too? Because tbh they all look and sound the same so it wouldn't be right to say "wit da" is "with the" but not "wiz ta" or "widde". They're just difference in spelling but on Wikipedia, ghetto language is not permitted as acceptable English so whatever you think "wit da" is should be treated as a proper noun because it's obviously invented and thus not part of the English language. Also, what the subject or his associates think doesn't matter as reliable sources and proper English comes first in policy/guideline. While there may be some sources like BBC and Billboard that use "wit da", WP:AT recommends the term most commonly used in majority of reliable sources, which is the capitalized form. The editor whose username is Z0 06:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
You're conflating two different things. Reliable sources determine the common name of a subject. But typography issues like capital letters follow our own MOS which can be different to those sources. Slang or informal spelling doesn't mean the word suddenly changes its fundamental meaning. For example, the Oxford Dictionary entry for "da" defines it as a "non-standard spelling of the, used in representing speech", with the example of I'm wit you bro…fight da man!. Yes African-American Vernacular English is generally said to be on the casual/informal end of the continuum. But a spelling change does not automatically change the same underlying meaning of the word. Spellcast (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per Spellcast and Binksternet. News sources are not consistent, and even per the evidence, the words clearly stand for "with the". Boogie is not a special case who needs to have words in his stage name capitalised. Ss112 09:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What evidence? Did you not read what I've said? The editor whose username is Z0 10:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ...Obviously the evidence Binksternet provided above—a primary source recognises them as meaning "with" and "the". Also, by "ghetto language", I assume you mean African-American Vernacular English, which is indeed a dialect of English. "wit" and "da" are common and generally accepted as words meaning "with" and "the" in AAVE, therefore English language capitalisation rules still apply. Ss112 13:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments stated by Spellcast, Binksternet, and Ss112. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2018 (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.