Talk:Straight Outta Lynwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

/Archive 1

[edit] another mention of 27?

Wierd Al mentions the number 27 quite often in his tracks, cover arts, etc... (running with scissors art, straight outta lynwood: car plate "027 NLY")...

here's a quote from the track "Confessions Part III":

Baby forgive me I'm still trying to figure out why I used your toothbrush to clean off the bathroom grought
Oh and sometimes in private, I really like to dress up as Shirley Temple and spank myself with a hockey stick (hockey stick)
My boss thinks I'm a jerk, I didn't get that raise.
I haven't changed my underwear in twenty-seven days!
And when I'm kissing you I fantasize you as a midget
I'm so sorry Debbi! I mean Bridget!

i do think this has gotta be mentioned in the article....

--BratX 08:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "gotta" be mentioned. Al fans are well aware of the whole 27 things, and those that aren't aware of it probably couldn't care less. If a Weird Al wiki gets created, then detailing every incident of the number 27 would be fine, but it's not something that Wikipedia needs. A lot of the Al-related articles are already overloaded with needless trivia. And even if it does get mentioned, the single line would be sufficient, the extra 5 lines of context are overkill. - Ugliness Man 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) for capitalisation rules. --Phronima 15:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From that page:

In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles (a, and, the) and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., to, from, and).

Outta does not fall into one of those categories so it gets capitalized. Michael Greiner 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME, which provides capitalization conventions, "documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia" -- and it doesn't say anything about five letters, and has a specific section for album titles. The page you cite is not official policy, and is much less complete; I think it should be deleted. -- Jibal 00:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• The only reason I cited that page is that User:Phronima first mentioned it as an example as why it should be "outta." The page did say something about five letters but it was removed by User:Mel Etitis since this controversy started. (Which is a move I don't particularly like because he changed it after becoming involved here) I only cited the page to show incorrect usage, and was not the first to bring it up. Michael Greiner 00:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As "Outta" means/stands for "out of" it would normally remain uncapitalised. I'm not sure when the MoS changed so as to make capitalisation apply to prepositions over five leters (fairly recently), nor why — but "outta" isn't a preposition, it's a portmanteau of two prepositions. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"However" means "but", but that's not a reason not to capitalize "However". It doesn't matter what "Outta" means, the simple and obvious fact is that it isn't shorter than five letters. However, that's not relevant, because there is not currently any five letter rule. -- Jibal 23:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's not shorter than five letters. And if it isn't a preposition, then it certainly should be capitalized. I challenge you to find a source that does not capitalize "Outta". --Maxamegalon2000 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Prepositions at least five letters long have been capitalized in such cases since well before there was any such thing as Wikipedia, at least in MLA style. (I learned this rule in the late eighties or very early nineties...) Perhaps Wikipedia's style manual was based on different conventions in the past, I don't know, but even if this is a change I'm not sure why it would be a surprising change. --Jonadab, 2007 Mar 15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.213.116.3 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 March 2007.

Yes, according to one manual of style they're capitalised; according to others (such as that used by Oxford University Press) they're not (see, for example, their editions of Locke's An Essay concerning Human Understanding). Ours always took the same line as the OUP MoS. It's surprising that it changed because there was no discussion or consensus; it was slipped in recently by a single editor. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to find any manual that specifically mentions "outta", as it's a slang form. Abbreviated forms of prepositions are not capitalised, however, but follow the rule for what they abbreviate; in the same way, as this non-word stands for two prepositions, each shorter than five letters, I can't see why it should be capitalised. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would assume that the rules for prepositions with fewer than five letters apply to portmanteau slang terms with five letters. Also, Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English lists "outta" as a preposition, not an abbreviated portmanteau. And again, I challenge you to find a source that does not capitalize the word in this title. --Maxamegalon2000 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised and disdainful of Webster's; I can only hope that their print version is more careful. As it's difficult (impossible?) to do a case-sensitive Web search as one used to be able to (and in any case that would be difficult, as "outta" is capitalised when the first word, or when a style manual capitalises all prepositions and articles, etc.), your challenge is empty — and in any case, irrelevant here.

I've discovered the point at which our guideline was changed to allow capitalisation of five-letter prepositions — a few months ago, and by one editor who seems to have slipped it in with no consensus and no-one really noticing. I've raised the issue. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused. When presented with evidence that Webster's considers the word a preposition, you dismiss it as a careless mistake. When asked to find a source that follows your postion, you admit that doing so difficult or impossible. And when shown that your position is contrary to our guideline, you attempt to change the guideline. What evidence supporting my position would you consider legitimate? This is not a rhetorical question. --Maxamegalon2000 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. outta prep. an informal contraction of "out of", used in representing colloquial speech: we'd better get outta here. (From The New Oxford American Dictionary)

2. outta preposition a non-standard contraction of "out of", used in representing informal speech: we'd better get outta here. (From The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised))

That's the sort of thing that I'd have expected from a decent dictionary; not to mention that it's a contraction is poor. You seem to think, though, that giving one dictionary entry is enough to make your case; it isn't. You also seem not to have read what I said about the Wikipedia guidelines: the page was changed by one person, without consensus. I've merely reverted that, and asked for discussion. If consensus is reached, then I'll abide by the result (though, if the four-letter limit is aproved I'll need to ask the separate question about "outta"). No evidence will prove things either way; it's a question of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This suggests that the "Outta" is capitalized. If the musician's own website uses a certain method of capitalization, then by all means this article should remain here. There have been two threads at the admin noticeboards that discuss these moves, one of which I had to do a histmerge to fix. I've been in several situations where there are multiple possible readings, capitalizations, etc., and I defer to whatever "official" source there may be for it. Citing dictionaries to note with the manual of style is one thing, but when you actually see the creator use something that defies our MoS, then you go with what he uses.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive78#Page move issue
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive78#Page move issue - again

The relevant WP:AN threads.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First, you seriously misunderstand the issue of our naming conventions. Secondly, you've misused your admin powers in first moving and then protecting the move. I've raised this at WP:AN/I. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the move back restored the status quo. File at WP:RM. Chris cheese whine 22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the instructions on using protection. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryūlóng's comments about what "should" be done and what "you go with" are wrong. According to WP:NAME, "In band names and titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique (don't worry, nobody pays any heed to this disclaimer anyway), the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first or the last word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (in, to, over), articles (an, a, the), or the word to when used to form an infinitive." Nowhere in any WP convention does it say that capitalization should follow the musician's website. -- Jibal 23:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the links to the AN threads that discuss the issues for why I protected this article from moving.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this is even an issue. Does Staight outta Lynwood look better than Straight Outta Lynwood? Didn't think so. Quite frankly, the fact that this is even being debated means there is a flaw in Wikipedia's naming conventions and that is what should be corrected here. Xizer 02:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, I've read most of this, but is this basically saying the article should not carry the lettering of what it's about and should follow a certain rule? That seems backwards to me, I personally don't care, but the original source, namely the album, is named "Straight Outta Lynwood" and not "Straight outta Lynwood", I think this might be a case of people accepting a common truth, articles carry the exact names of their subject matter, whereas the rules awkwardly state otherwise. Revrant 09:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with this logic. We all need to just look at the actual album and copy it exactly as shown in the artwork. There's a reason the artist chose to publish that we and we need to follow the evidence. --Mtjaws 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this debate is stupid, that "Outta" is 5 letters and therefore immune to the rule, and that "Straight Outta Lynwood" is simply the official album title... however, album artwork isn't a good source, since the title is actually in allcaps on the cover, and anyone trying to get the article renamed to STRAIGHT OUTTA LYNWOOD will get their heads dunked in a vat of tuna-flavoured pudding. If you need a source, just go to [his official site, which has the proper mixed-case title on the music page. - Ugliness Man 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White and Nerdy Fan Video

Just a note that the fan-made version of the white and nerdy video no longer has a proper working link. It links to American Idol now, of all things. - Some random non-registered user (N00B) at 3:17 PM CST.

Link has been changed. Thanks. Michael Greiner 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)