Talk:Do It like a Dude

Current chart position

I note that the BBC and the Official UK Charts Company don't have the same current chart position for Do It Like a Dude. The Official UK Charts Company say it is at 22 whilst the BBC say it is at 21. Can anyone figure this out? Adambro (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

music video..

shoudnt we mention the music video at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.98.39 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre?

Since this article was first created there has been a lot of controversy over the genre of this song. Does anyone actually know the genre of this song and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryguy93 (talk • contribs) 5 February 2011

In the article it is stated that it is Pop and Pop Rock, however it is not rock, as its beat is urban influenced and the vocal arrangement features r&b interpolations (and high doses of autotune), no way it is pop rock, I've changed it in the past adding some sources, but it was reverted, it is reviewed by the critics that this song is either Urban or Pop, with R&B elements. I'm changing it back to Pop, R&B. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please add such sources when changing content like this. I have reverted in the meantime. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are several, including [1], being included in several R&B compilation albums also denotes its genre [2], Telegraph cites her as a new R&B singer and cites only the aggressive single Do It Like A Dude [3] however this could be interpreted as correlation does not imply causation case, TheGuardian also cites that the "R&B single climbed steadily to reach number 5 last week" [4], a BBC radio show cites Do It Like A Dude on its top5 R&B songs [5]. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, using guardian.co.uk ref. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception section

You do not post an entire review. You are supposed to include just a few things of what the critic(s) said, not the whole review. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, those lines are simply PART of a review. They are not the whole review and it has been done on many other pages. Sorry, but you are incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.73.242 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you are. You only put in key parts of a review, not an entire paragraph. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 14:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone rate songs out of four not five. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.197.213 (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move to Do It Like a Dude

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: no consensus at this time, and strongly suggest clarification of the relationship between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOSCAPS. This has been a recurring problem lately in requested moves and requires that we get beyond local consensus and look at the root of the problem. One solution would seem to be adding an explicit statement in WP:MOSCAPS that common name does not imply common style, and that the MOS should be used to determine style (including capitalization) in article titles. The other solution would seem to be adding an explicit direction that the style guide is only to be used for titles in cases in which the most common stylization of the title is unclear, which would be closer to the way we negotiate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The final two sections of WT:MOSCAPS are currently attempts to clarify this exact problem, but have not received replies or yet established consensus. Although a majority of the editors responding here are in favor of a move, I am unwilling to close this as a move when a majority of editors are also supporting a move the other direction in a move request started less than an hour after this one. I'm closing both requests (and Talk:Walks Like Rihanna) as no consensus and asking that discussion continue at WT:MOSCAPS. Dekimasuよ! 19:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Do It like a Dude → Do It Like a Dude – Grammar reasons; the letter 'l' should be capitalised. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 07:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - When both the official and overwhelmingly commonly used name match, there's little reason not to have the article at that title.

The proposed title is overwhelmingly preferred by the policy of using the most common name, and the manual of style specifically encourages editor discretion. The MOS is great for our writing style and when the official or common name might be unknown, but to argue that it should be used to take an official name with a specifically chosen title that is used by the absolutely overwhelming majority of reliable sources, including books, newspapers, and websites, as well as is the generally common name is fairly absurd. Our title guidelines and policies are unfortunately somewhat murky. But, what it comes down to can be gleaned from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), which states that "an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility". If Billboard is using a style, and Rolling Stone or the books written that discuss the song, or Spin or just the bulk of reliable sourcing in general largely use the official title, is it really common sense for us to be saying we shouldn't be following the sources here in order to somehow adhere to conventions and gain credibility? Wikipedia is a unique construct in that our work is so clearly tied and based off of reliable sourcing about the subject -- making us stand out and go against the grain here just doesn't make much sense.There's also just the general notion (which certainly should not be the deciding factor in finding consensus) that certain lowercase words just look weird in titles. Perhaps this may give some indication as to why "like" and other 3 or more letter words are very often capitalized in composition titles but words like "a", "to", or "and" often aren't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yaksar: Thanks for your reply. This happened once in Walks Like Rihanna too, where I, too, requested for moveas the 'l' is supposed to be capitalised. However, some editors might argue at the point that the word 'like' will only be capitalised when it is used for song titles like I Like It (Enrique Iglesias song). We need more opinions before deciding to move the article. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 08:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Support As per WP:DoItLikeaGrammatician Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The above comments seem rather incoherent. We don't especially need to look to sources for this – it is only a question of styling. Wikipedia has a house style and we should use it (unless we decide to change it). What does MOS:CT / WP:NCCAPS suggest here? It seems to me that in this phrase, "it" is a noun or perhaps "do it" is a phrasal verb – both being situations where "it" should be capitalized. I believe "like" is a preposition containing four letters or fewer; the use of "like" seems similar to its use in Moves like Jagger and Someone like Me. So I suggest the proper title to be Do It like a Dude (which is already the current page name). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• If the point of the house style is that "an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility", and we are choosing not to follow these conventions widely used in the genre, what is that actual logic?--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• That quote is from a longer sentence that was not quoted in its entirety. In that phrase, "the genre" refers to the genre of encyclopedias, not the collection of individual sources specific to each particular topic. That isn't saying anything about looking at topic-specific sources to determine what styling to apply for capitalization. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Regardless, Wikipedia is a construct based entirely off of what sources we consider reliable on the subject say. To move away from that for titling remains illogical and is counterproductive to goals of credibility.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Writing for Wikipedia is not merely a matter of copying from sources. Wikipedia has various policies and guidelines of its own as well – the purpose of some of which are to try to produce a coherent and consistent resulting encyclopedia. Even when directly quoting, we consider typographic conformity, saying that "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure the meaning of the text; this practice is universal among publishers. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud, such as: * Changing capitalization so that sentences begin with capital letters and do not have unnecessary capitals in the middle ..." (quotation from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Typographic conformity). This is a matter merely of styling – a matter of typographic conformity. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I notice the example given above of "Walks Like Rihanna". But I just took a look at that, and there's never been a formal move discussion about that article, unlike for Moves like Jagger and Someone like Me, so I think it's less worthy of considering a precedent. To me, that appears to just be WP:OTHERSTUFF. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• It may also be worth mentioning WP:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization, which again refers to following the MOS:CT conventions, and does not mention trying to follow what sources do. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Usually I'd Oppose on a request over a capital letter but the capital "L" is used widely for the song so we imho should follow suit. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Propositions less than five letters should not be capitalized, especially when MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS are still around. "like" is a preposition and is part of the title. If "like" were a verb with subject and object words, then capitalizing "Like" is okay. However, the title doesn't treat "like" as a verb, an adverb, or anything else other than a preposition. Authors of the sources who capitalize "Like" while referring to the title are lazy and not experts of grammar. We don't want to dumb down English just to please the external authors of secondary sources. Also, "like" has no special exceptions, like Star Trek Into Darkness and dot the i. --George Ho (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment only. We have 3 songs at RM in opposing directions. If there is a problem then it is self-inflicted by WP. As far as I am concerned we are not talking about the title of the song as rendered in other places, but how the URL is rendered to find the article which will, hopefully, show the name in the correct style (this applies to more than just song titles) in the article. The argument that the URL should be the title is little more than wishful thinking given the amount of disambiguation, technical restrictions and other matters at WP. FWIW, how many editors, let alone readers, would know whether "like" is being used in the correct manner? If editors want to argue about capitalization, article by article is not the place! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:30, 9 November 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.

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects this page, suggesting that the capitalization of "like" should be removed. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 16:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Do It like a Dude. 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.pridesource.com/article.html?article=46663
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/singlesreviews/a289863/jessie-j-do-it-like-a-dude.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/songreviews/do-it-like-a-dude-20110126
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724195845/http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=61 to http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=61
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DaMNbmDo?url=http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/Search.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Do It like a Dude. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217034529/http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300 to http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=881826379&search_in=i&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=30&start=1
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DFUq14Qi?url=http://subscription.we7.com/album/Jessie-J/Do-It-Like-A-Dude to http://we7.com/album/Jessie-J/Do-It-Like-A-Dude

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) 20:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)