# Talk:Ultraviolet (Light My Way)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I see somebody moved the page from Ultra Violet to Ultraviolet, and I knew this would come up eventually. I'm not quite sure what we should have as the definitive name for this article because the album itself contradicts itself, as in the liner notes it says "Ultraviolet", but on the back of the Achtung Baby album it says "Ultra Violet." U2.com has it as Ultraviolet, but then again U2.com isn't always right, look at the lyrics for some of the songs and they'll be off in some places (EX. Bad, Original of the Species, etc.) On iTunes its listed as "Ultra Violet" in everywhere except the US, however its listes as Ultra Violet on The Complete U2 on iTunes everywhere, including the US, and in the liner notes (digital booklet) for the Complete U2, which had significant input from The Edge himself. Honestly I don't know what we should call the article but I think that we should have some kind if vote on it, maybe U2 meant for us to debate this for a long time haha. Undertaker2134 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved 'Ultra Violet' to 'Ultraviolet' because ultraviolet is one word, and the back of Achtung Baby is artistically capitalised, e.g. 'ULTRA violet (light my WAY)'. The space between 'ULTRA' and 'violet' may be a simple typographical error. As for lyrical errors at U2.com, I do not know, but the liner notes of 'Tryin' to Throw Your Arms Around the World' misspells 'lose' as 'loose'. Pædia 08:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that makes sense, its just that it seems to have inconsitent spelling, and you're probably right about it bieng 'artistically capitalized' I think that calling it "Ultraviolet" and having the little thing about "also spelled 'Ultra Violet' makes sense. I know its not really that big of a deal but I think that what is there now is good because it has been spelled in both ways, and as for the definitive spelling it would make sense that it would be the one word. Undertaker2134 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
In the now-revived article, I've added a footnote to cover the variant spelling issue.  But I think the article is correctly named as it is.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure that "Ultraviolet" is the correct variant; recent setlists on U2.com wrote it in this manner and, while they do occassionally shorten a name they generally spell it correctly. Moreover, it is also spelt this way in the lyrics section of the website. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think Ultra Violet is correct. First of all, this name appears on the back cover of Achtung Baby. I know it's 'artistically capitalized' but it also could be done this way if Ultra Violet was one word on the back cover. Simply, the whole word would be capitalized. The second and the newest argument is that this track is written as Ultra Violet (Light My Way) on the most recent tracklisting of Achtung Baby on U2.com: http://www.u2.com/news/title/achtung-baby-track-listing-revealed/ . And it is likely that it'll be written this way on the Achtung Baby reissues' back covers. Ciszek (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Achtung Baby discography entry on U2.com lists it as "Ultraviolet". The Rose Bowl entry calls it "Ultra Violet". The lyrics entry is "Ultraviolet". The album back cover is "Ultra Violet". The album liner notes says "Ultraviolet". U2 By U2 (p. 225) also has it as "Ultraviolet". Clearly both varients are acceptable, even by official sources. I think the footnote in the article covers this matter adequately, and I do not see a reason to change it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


### "Ultraviolet" vs "Ultra Violet": take 2
It seems that every year the issue of how the song is spelt crops up. With this being an issue again, perhaps it is time to regauge what the consensus on the matter is: do we call it "Ultraviolet" or "Ultra Violet"? The Achtung Baby discography entry on U2.com lists it as "Ultraviolet". The Rose Bowl entry calls it "Ultra Violet". The lyrics entry is "Ultraviolet". The album back cover is "ULTRA Violet". The inside of the album's liner notes says "Ultraviolet". U2 By U2 (p. 225) also has it as "Ultraviolet". I think it is clear that both spelling varients are acceptable, even by official sources (and within the same medium)! I think the footnote in the article covers the matter adequately, and I don't think it really needs to be changed from "Ultraviolet" to "Ultra Violet". Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, leave it the way it has been.  Since the actual word is "ultraviolet", the burden of proof relies on those who think U2 spelled it differently, and there's too little evidence to support that.  And those editors who want to change it need to make their case here on Talk, not just unilaterally move it.   Wasted Time R (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
On the 2011 release, the track listing list it as "ULTRA violet". The lyrics list it as "Ultra Violet". "Ultraviolet" is used nowhere. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The 2011 edition, perhaps. In the original 1991 liner notes, that is not the case. And again, I point to the numerous other media where "Ultraviolet" is used in place of "Ultra Violet". Both spellings seem to be acceptable, and given that the band seems to have no problem using either, I really don't see a reason to change. Neither version is inaccurate, or more correct than the other. In my opinion, we should just leave it at the status quo. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a very important issue. I hope you make the right choice. The article depends on it. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The lyrics entry now shows the name as "Ultra Violet (Light My Way)". Where is the name "Ultraviolet" used in the album's liner notes? I could not find it there: https://www.discogs.com/U2-Achtung-Baby/release/371250. On the contrary, "Ultra Violet" is used as the title for the lyrics of the song in the booklet. Ciszek (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that there appears to be (another) image war impending over, perhaps we should rationally discuss the issue here? As I see it there are three images known to be available for use in this article: Image:Ultraviolet 23 Sep 2009.jpg taken by Wasted Time R, File:U2-Ultraviolet-Live-360tour-Toronto-2.jpg taken by me and currently used in the U2 360° Tour article, and File:U2-Ultraviolet-Live-360tour-Toronto.jpg. 
Personally, I think that the second image should not be used in this article; it's already used in the tour article and its purpose there is to display the steering wheel and laser suit used in the show. It doesn't really add much to this article. Of the two that remain I lean more towards the image taken by Wasted Time R since it seems to convey more of the emotion of the song through the lighting arrangement. Your opinions? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that having the two images next to each other was a bit cluttered.  However, there's no reason the stage lighting image needs to be in the "live performances" section; it actually works better illustrating the discussion of color in the "writing" section further up.  So I've moved it there, see what you think.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
There's still more I expect to add to the article once I hit the library tomorrow, so I think it can definitely support two images. As for the two up-close Toronto pictures, they're both good, but I would also choose to avoid repeating whichever one is in the tour article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if an audio clip could be added (I'm not set up to do it).  I would suggest one of the 'baby, baby, baby, light my way' choruses as the segment, since that's a focus of the article and the upcoming DYK hook.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ultraviolet (Light My Way)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
The main thing I reacted to was the heading "Composition". This gives the impression that the section gives insight into the creative process behind the song, which it barely does at all. I think a better heading would be "Lyrics and interpretation". I'll change this, but feel free to object.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The language is very good, I found nothing to complain about.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The one thing I reacted to here was the use of sources with a religious slant. It is true that U2 is a band that uses a lot of religious imagery, but these sources can give the impression of bias, and the publishing houses are not necessarily the most academic, reliable ones. The use is not excessive though, and it should not prevent the article from obtaining GA status.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
A bit much on the lyrics perhaps, and less on the music, but at least both are properly covered.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Impressively comprehensive use of images and other media (sound, that is).
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
A good article, I'm happy to make this a GA.
Thanks very much for the review and the pass.  Regarding the section title in question, it can't be just "Lyrics and interpretation" because the section deals with the song's music as well (in the first and last paragraphs).  The creative process is dealt with partly in the "Recording" section ... to be honest I'm not thrilled with the section titles either, but there's another editor on the U2 project who's adamant that the titles be the way they are, and I gave up trying to do otherwise.  I've changed this particular title to "Composition and interpretation", maybe that will be an acceptable compromise.  Regarding the treatment of religion, I've found with U2 you tend to get either sources who mostly ignore it (and treat U2 as they do any other very successful pop artist) or sources who use it as their primary focal point.  I don't think the latter sources are biased, per se, just prone to a particular lens through which to see the group.  I think that, especially in the "Live performances" section, the article gives plenty of weight to non-religious reception of the song as well.  Anyway, thanks again for the review.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Ultraviolet (Light My Way). 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 https://web.archive.org/20090508121655/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/artists/u2/albums/album/116432/review/5941852/achtung_baby to http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/u2/albums/album/116432/review/5941852/achtung_baby
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ultraviolet (Light My Way). 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/20091212125058/http://www.timepieces.nl/Albums-U/U2_Achtung_Baby.htm to http://www.timepieces.nl/Albums-U/U2_Achtung_Baby.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 00:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)