Talk:GZA

New Album: D.A.R.T.S

Are you guys gonna add it here? It's listed as 'import' on amazon, and i think it's currently not released worldwide? what's up? -SG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.161.70 (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this is old but "D.A.R.T.S." was a GZA compilation mixtape, compiling some of his best verses back-to-back, released shortly before the Wu-Tang Clan "8 Diagrams" Harvard Yardfest concert, and only released in Europe specifically a month before his summer "ProTools/Liquid Swords" European Tour. That's why it should not be listed under studio albums, as it was a tour-only promo CD to coincide with the summer tour of his 2008 actual album "ProTools". Wufan10304 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrongful Redirecting?

Why does a search for Maximillion redirect to this article?

-- maximillion is one of gza's aliases

Birthdate?

Can somebody find a birthdate for GZA? Blastfromthepast 05:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the provided "Shadowboxing" sound clip is not the best example of Gza's music . . . considering Gza isn't even in the clip. The voice is that of Method Man, who is featured on the single. -- 68.115.95.184 8 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

I replaced it with a sample of GZA on Ghostface's "Wu Banga 101". Not his own song, I know, but it serves its purpose of letting people find out what he sounds like. --Jamieli 8 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Isn't reducing "The Genius" to an alias a little bit weird, since it's included even on most album covers and since his record label's site says "GZA/Genius"? http://www.mcarecords.com/artistMain.asp?artistid=100 .. I'd rather say that GZA is aka "GZA/Genius" than "The Genious"..--Jacob no. 9 10:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"GZA/Genius" is just "GZA, also known as Genius". Genius was his name before he took the name GZA. --Jamieli 12:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarian/McDonalds

Someone added "Gza is a known fan of McDonalds even tho he is a vegetarian." under the technique section. Even though I looked it up and both are true, I removed it because it has no place in technique and I couldn't think of another place to put it. If someone wants to write one or both of these facts somewhere else, please do. M.nelson (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hey Neslon, that should go under a "Personal Life" section. He also likes country music, too!! I would add it, but I can't find a good source for that.(LonerXL (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Trouble with A&Rs

I felt that this article was too damn short, so I added the section and quote about GZA's dislikeness towards A&R, from the Wu Tang article, and I moved it to this page, because I felt that it would be more appropriate and neccessary here. Not much is known about his life before he started rapping either.(LonerXL (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Image, Lyrical Style, Creation Process, Rhyme Mentality

I also added some good quotes and sectons in his views in rhyming, making songs, and freestyling, because his personal thoughts and opinions are not really known to alot of people. He doesn't do alot of interviews, so I beleive that this was really needed here. If anyone disagrees with anything, then please at least come and talk to me about it, before you do anything.(LonerXL (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

GZA'S PRODUCTION WORK

This article only has one line on Gza's production in hiphop..he co produced many of the tracks on Pro Tools and has produced tracks for many Wu Tang artists...I believe he hasnt been credited in this article for them because only a few people know him as Allah Justice.

I'd like to see more general info about GZA. Perhaps a little more info about his albums, particularly how his debut album Liquid Swords had a tremendous impact on rap, particularly East Coast rap. And any more info thats REAL but interesting. Wu Tang Clan are one of the most important groups of hiphop/rap and while the main page is decent, myself and others would like to see more info pertaining to the individual members of Wu. - Iscream22

1975

The GZA did not start in 1975. Rap wasn't even a genre until 1979 with the sugar hill gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.187.246 (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Name

Should the article title not be 'GZA' instead of 'Gza'.? KANE 18:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#All_caps and Wikipedia:MUSTARD#Capitalization Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, his official name is "GZA" which is all caps. Wikipedia moderators need to check The Wu-Tang Manual, not the dictionary or Manual of Style or whatever bs they are referencing. GZA came up with it; GZA is the primary source of how to spell it. Just like RZA is all caps as well. "GZA" references the sound a turntable makes when scratching the name "Genius." Duh. Makes Wikipedia look like retards. Wufan10304 (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia content doesn't conform to the Wu-Tang Manual, it conforms to the Wikipedia style guide. As you say yourself, "'GZA' references the sound a turntable makes when scratching the name 'Genius'." You don't even try to claim that it's an initialism/acronym. There is no reason whatsoever for it to be rendered in all caps. Wetdogmeat (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

GZA → Gza – to be moved as per WP:ALLCAPS, etc. - GZA is not an initialism or acronym, it is pronounced 'jizza' and is intended to reflect the sound a turntable makes when scratching the word 'genius' (which is the artist's alternative moniker), the capitalisation is purely stylistic and against WP guidelines. Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. "GZA" is effectively a trademark, so MOS:TM applies: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one." I can't find any sources that refer to him as "Gza", and this guideline prohibits us from inventing a new style. Therefore, we should call him "GZA". DoctorKubla (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this opposition. We should leave it as GZA, as this prevents us still even though there are select minor cases of the name being spelled wrong, the owner considers the all caps stylizing as 'official.' Let's leave it alone. Wufan10304 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, I didn't look hard enough. There are a few sources that call him "Gza" (eg. [1], [2], [3], [4]). My mistake. I support the move proposal. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It also appears that way on the cover of Beneath the Surface. Wetdogmeat (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on the cover of Beneath the Surface, it is spelled GZA in all caps. You're reading it wrong. Wufan10304 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The G is noticably larger on the album cover, implying that it is written in small caps, which is a stylisation of normal lowercase letters. Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's because the G is the Wu-Tang logo turned sideways, and the /Genius is underneath, it's the GZA logo purposely made bigger to cover both names. Look at the Z and A. They are not stylized as "z" and "a" but rather "Z" and "A." Caps. The only thing that the G being bigger "implies" as you put it, is that the "G" is bigger. Not that the obvious uppercase letters "ZA" are meant to be taken as lowercase. That's pure speculation. Wufan10304 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Again: small caps. That's what a small caps formatting looks like. The effectively lowercase letters are rendered as caps. HOWEVER, this is a minor sidebar to the central justification for the move, which is that, 1) we must choose from styles already in existence and not invent new ones, and 2) we must choose the style that most closely resembles normal English. That style is Gza. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support even though a minority in sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes, a large minority in sources, as the name is spelled nearly everywhere as GZA. Wufan10304 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gza → GZA – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Gza is used in a minority of reliable sources (saying that, I can't find any at all) and the COMMONNAME policy overrides any MOS guideline. (e.g. MOS:TM and WP:ALLCAPS.) Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 14:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1) Appealing to COMMONNAME is begging the question regarding the policy's applicability to questions of style. 2) Perhaps you'll find some reliable sources cited in the original RM, if you look. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ALLCAPS. GZA is not a acronym or backronym, it is "Kiss" not KISS or Time not TIME. Also if you see the previous requested move, there are reliable sources that use "Gza". STATic message me! 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support He has released all his albums using GZA in caps and it is not comparable to "TIME" or "KISS" its a whole different story. Koala15 (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  Kiss have always styled their name in caps too. And Time has always been styled in caps. Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per the policy WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ACRONYMTITLE#Acronyms_in_page_titles, and per the goals listed at WP:CRITERIA:

• Recognizability - Both GZA and Gza are recognizable
• Naturalness – GZA is what the user would search for and what they would expect the title to be.
• Precision – GZA is more precise because it is the version used by most of the sources, and GZA himself.
• Conciseness – Both are concise.
• Consistency – Comparing it to Time and Kiss is different because of Naturalness and Precision. Ross Hill 23:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Who holds the shift key or presses caps lock to search for things in all caps? And how is the comparison to KISS inappropriate? The band always styles their name in caps. Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – not because the all-caps version is more common, but because "Gza" seems to be non-existent in sources. As with MOS:TM, we should be choosing from among styles in use, not making a styling unique to WP. (and nom's suggestion that COMMONNAME, a strategy for recognizability, overrides other guidelines is just silly.) Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  Some sources from the previous RM: [5], [6], [7], [8] Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. In that case, I Oppose. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  It's still used in a majority of sources, thus making it more common. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 06:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  Just a drive-by comment: WP:COMMONNAME does not necessarily mean the most common name. And it doesn't explicitly apply to letter case, either. —Frungi (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose MOS:CAPS Gza isn't an acronym -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 17 July 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. There is a clear consensus for the proposed move. Notably, the policy of Wikipedia:Article titles outweighs the guideline of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. bd2412 T 21:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Gza → GZA – Let's follow reliable sources, and MOS:TM and WP:COMMONNAME which clearly apply to the name here, since the overwhelming consensus of the moniker is all-caps. Also in the recent case of RZA being changed from Rza after much controversial debate, I think it sets precedent and needs a closer look. I am not talking about changing the name for the sake of acronyms nor backronyms, but purely off trademark and reliable naming conventions alone. The same as SAT is neither an acronym or backronym, yet the trademark permits us to use all caps for it's stylizing. The same rule should apply here. The name is also widely used in the article in all caps, so why would the title be different stylizing? That does not make much sense. GZA is a trademark name, the MOS:TM and WP:COMMONNAME apply here, and the overwhelming reliable sources and use in American print and music is proof as such. I can't find any Google results instances where the name is not spelled with all caps, either, which is a clear indication of Naturalness and Precision. Let's portray the name the right way, and not incorrectly due to some misprints. And please do not keep using WP:ALLCAPS as your opposing argument, as that is getting to be old fast. Let's not ignore the proper naming convention of this artist and portray it correctly. Wufan10304 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; At RZA, it was shown it is an acronym. SAT is Scholastic Aptitude Test traditionally, an acronym. So, show that this is an acronym. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is not an acronomym, again. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. As with RZA, I'm seeing few if any sources that write the name as "Gza".--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support: most sources seem to support GZA. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. WP:COMMONNAME trumps MoS:TM as the former is a policy. Calidum T|C 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Common name. Randy Kryn 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Once again, the misguided but furiously guarded guideline at MOS:TM finds itself railroaded by WP:COMMONNAME. We should really write a note in WP:AT to expressly indicate that this often happens. Red Slash 20:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder why we don't apply WP:COMMONAME to everything (such as all those forms that exist under different names in English than their native forms, but for which, we for some reason don't use the English forms) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per sources. Cavarrone 10:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: What I'm seeing above is a rough consensus that the conventions as they stand should not be applied. If this move goes ahead, the conventions should be updated to reflect this new consensus. Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. This is a special case involving a stage name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:08, 5 August 2015 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GZA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090228165039/http://www.sixshot.com:80/articles/9042/ to http://www.sixshot.com/articles/9042/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Image

Blastmaster11, on Wikipedia we don't waste time and intention to discuss obvious improvements and simple edits, however due to your edit summary remark... By your criteria of "more recent date", this should be better than this, however a simple research of other well known personalities infobox image you will understand what kind of images are favored in the infobox.--Crovata (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Blastmaster11, I started this useless discussion because I recognized you seek only trouble. Two hours after this discussion was started, without even one reply, you reported me to the administrators Slakr and Widr. I openly ask you, do you have a hidden agenda, or only subjective admiration for the previous image?--Crovata (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Crovata. Thanks for your comments. Here at Wikipedia we address direct issues with a user at their talk page (as you clearly failed to do above - you called me out by name), while, we address general issues with an article at its talk page - all while remaining civil. For years now no one has had any qualms with the 2008 photo in the infobox, but then out of the blue you come along and replace it with one that's 16 years old, and somehow you have the final say? Interesting. By the way, I contacted admin. as you're clearly edit warring and being rude - I have every right to contact them. In regards to your accusing me of "seeking only trouble" - how? Could it be that I simply reverted edits that weren't first discussed? Don't take it personal. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, spare me with the talk how Wikipedia function and your behavior - you failed to reply two hours before reporting me for nothing, stating that I reverted it "several times" (2x). For years no one has done a major and constructive edit on the article, but then I came out of the blue on 2 November and did it, with it replacing the infobox image in which the personality can be clearly seen, like in every personality infobox, for example see Michael Jackson (the infobox image is from 1988), or Madonna (entertainer) (the image is from 2008), Rakim (1998). --Crovata (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Believe me Crovata, I'd love to "spare you the talk with how Wikipedia functions", but judging by your conduct and failure to properly use edit summaries and talk pages, it seems you may very well need it. I actually didn't report you "for nothing". As stated above "I contacted admin. as you're clearly edit warring and being rude - I have every right to contact them." Don't know how I possibly could have been more clear on that. You're absolutely right though by accusing me of telling admin. that you reverted me "several times". "Several times" does imply more than once. Two is more than one, hence, my using of the word "several" - lol. As far as your issues with the original 2008 photo of GZA performing "not being clearly seen", how so? I can see it clearly. For years now there hasn't been a single complaint about it, until now. Sorry but I don't see an out-dated photo of GZA that looks like it was taken from one of those cheap $5.00 gift shop cameras as the prime photo people see when they first open his page. But hey, while we're at it, we should replace the current RZA infobox photo with this one, and the current Nas infobox photo with this one (both of which taken from the same amateur photographer that did the GZA photo that you yourself seem to have "subjective admiration" for). --Blastmaster11 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Two is more closer to few rather than several. Your argument with those images is clearly showing that what you seek is personal attention and possibility to argue, joke around, make me a fool, and clearly don't understand what kind of images are favored for the infobox. The first example is simply stupid, and the same goes for the second example. If you can't see the difference between both first images, the images I listed you, and the previous GZA image, then we really have nothing else to say. Please, if you don't have any better argument stop wasting my time.--Crovata (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Lol, my argument with those image examples was to present a point (which evidently went above your head). So here; I’ll soft ball it … just as this and this would be silly infobox images for those artists, this one is no different (i.e. all three images look like awkward senior high schools pics, and show the artists in goofy-dated attire they no longer clad). Sorry but I don't see this as the most definitive thing for people to see when opening GZA's page. Your juvenile argument that I "don't understand what kind of images are favored for the infobox" is rather laughable. The infoboxes for Beyoncé, Destiny's Child, Rihanna, Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Radiohead, etc., etc., etc., all seem to "favor" live photos, and in that respect are no different than this. Huh, weird. If you can't see that image "clearly", then perhaps a good ol' eye exam, or new computer monitor, might not hurt. It looks pretty darn clear to me. I'm willing though to meet halfway and go with this one, this one, this one or this one. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I was invited to this discussion, so I looked through the guidelines (infobox, musician and bio wikiprojects, and MOS:IMAGE), and I couldn't find anything relevant to which image would be more appropriate. One image shows the rapper's face more clearly--because it doesn't have the microphone in his face--and the other shows the rapper in the process of performing as a rapper--because it has the microphone in his face. I don't believe how recent an image is should factor in; personally I'd rather see an image of someone in their prime than when they're 80 years old and not doing what they were known as. I don't have a preference. Dan56 (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It does seem common to have more recent photos of people (who are still alive and active with their careers) in the infoboxes. Regardless of this photo, a newer one is in the infobox for Beyoncé. Also, Bruce Springsteen and Carole King's articles have available photos from when they were younger, yet more recent images are in the infobox. At the end of the day, I can't argue that it is all preference though. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GZA. 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/20160303234156/http://www.riotsound.com/hip-hop/rap/interviews/Gza-of-Wu-tang/index.php to http://www.riotsound.com/hip-hop/rap/interviews/Gza-of-Wu-tang/index.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is No Dark Matter Release Date

The statement under the Dark Matter sections states, "Dark Matter is scheduled for 2017." This has not been confirmed anywhere, so is untrue. The link used is UndergroundHipHop.com which just states the release date as TBA. Therefore, the statement should be removed completely or changed to reflect that no release date has been announced. Another point of interest on this subject is that Dark Matter has been in the works for years without release. There was speculation of release for 2016 but it did not drop. There is no indication that it will be released in 2017 simply because it's been in the works for numerous years. Wufan10304 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I removed the statement. Albrecht Conz (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. Wufan10304 (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

IATA identifier edit conflict for Palestine International Airport

GZA links to this page despite the IATA code. Surely this page should be titled `The GZA`?126.3.20.194 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: GZA used to be vegetarian for many years, then cut out dairy, and is now a proponent of raw food veganism. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)