Talk:That's My Boy

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Explanatory notes

1) In the December 5, 2011 version, the 1932 film was missing a national identity and indicated that unbilled bit player John Wayne had a supporting role --- in the current version, the national identity is once again missing along with the fact that the film is a college football drama. The word "film" is unnecessarily repeated and John Wayne is now indicated as one of the film's stars.

2) In the December 5, 2011 version, the 1951 film was missing a national identity --- in the current version, the national identity is once again missing along with the fact that it is a comedy. The word "film" is unnecessarily repeated.

3) The 2012 film was appended on January 22, 2012 (after the December 5, 2011 and January 5, 2012 edits) --- in the current version, the national identity is missing along with the fact that it is a comedy. The word "film" is unnecessarily repeated.

4) In the December 5, 2011 version,

5) In the December 5, 2011 version, That's My Boy (TV series), a 1980s UK sitcom starring Mollie Sugden had an incomplete qualifier which did not take into account the existence of another same-named TV series.

6) The entry "That's My Boy" – a song by Stan Freberg from A Child's Garden of Freberg (1957) was appended on December 25, 2012 (after the December 5, 2011 and January 5, 2012 edits) --- in the current version, the national identity is missing.

Current [February 17, 2016] version

That's My Boy may refer to:

Film and television

• That's My Boy (1932 film), film starring Richard Cromwell, Dorothy Jordan, Mae Marsh and John Wayne
• That's My Boy (1951 film), film starring Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis
• That's My Boy (2012 film), film starring Adam Sandler and Andy Samberg
• That's My Boy (U.S. TV series)
  , 1954 CBS sitcom based on the 1951 Martin and Lewis film
• That's My Boy (UK TV series), 1981 to 1986 sitcom made by Yorkshire Television for ITV

Other uses

• "That's My Boy", a 1957 song by Stan Freberg from A Child's Garden of Freberg

See also

• My Boy (disambiguation)

Roman Spinner's edit of January 5, 2012

That's My Boy may refer to:

• That's My Boy (1932 film), American college football drama directed by Roy William Neill for Columbia Pictures; starring Richard Cromwell, Dorothy Jordan, Mae Marsh and, in an unbilled bit, John Wayne
• That's My Boy (1951 film), American comedy directed by Hal Walker for Hal Wallis Productions and Paramount Pictures; 4th of 16 films starring Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis; co-starring Ruth Hussey and Eddie Mayehoff
• That's My Boy (American TV series)
  , 1954 CBS sitcom based on 1951 Martin and Lewis film, with Gil Stratton, Jr. portraying Jerry Lewis' character and Eddie Mayehoff recreating his original role as Lewis'/Stratton's father
• That's My Boy (British TV series)
  , Yorkshire Television sitcom aired by ITV from 1981 to 1986; starring Mollie Sugden, Christopher Blake and Jennifer Lonsdale

Version [December 5, 2011] immediately before Roman Spinner's edit

That's My Boy may refer to:

• That's My Boy (1932 film), a drama featuring John Wayne in a supporting role
• That's My Boy (1951 film), a comedy starring Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis
• That's My Boy (1954 TV series), a CBS
  comedy based on the 1951 Martin and Lewis film
• That's My Boy (TV series), a 1980s UK sitcom starring Mollie Sugden

@Roman Spinner:

The above comments relate to this discussion where I'd cited this page as a typical example of the alleged problem and asked for an explanation. As the issue was the creation of excessively long dab entries, I'll focus on that here.

The version you updated only had two entries for films of that name. The titles make clear that they're films; thus they're unlikely to be confused with either TV series, so the only additional information we require is that necessary to clearly distinguish the two films- no more.

Original version:

• That's My Boy (1932 film), a drama featuring John Wayne in a supporting role
• That's My Boy (1951 film), a comedy starring Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis

Revised version:

• That's My Boy (1932 film), American college football drama directed by Roy William Neill for Columbia Pictures; starring Richard Cromwell, Dorothy Jordan, Mae Marsh and, in an unbilled bit, John Wayne
• That's My Boy (1951 film), American comedy directed by Hal Walker for Hal Wallis Productions and Paramount Pictures; 4th of 16 films starring Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis; co-starring Ruth Hussey and Eddie Mayehoff

This gets to the heart of the matter- are you *seriously* trying to argue that- in order to simply make clear which film is which- we needed all that additional wording?

• The fact that the 1951 film was made "for Hal Wallis Productions and Paramount Pictures"? Fluff. It's incredibly unlikely to be useful in distinguishing it from the 1932 film for anyone who doesn't *already* know them. (Ditto the fact that the 1932 film was made "for Columbia Pictures".)
• The fact that the 1951 film was the "4th of 16 films" Martin and Lewis starred in? Blatant fluff.
• Mention of actors and directors is useful if- and only if- they're something likely to be strongly associated with a film (e.g. Martin and Lewis for the 1951 film almost certainly qualify; directors might do for *some* films, secondary cast, generally not).
• Even phrases like "in an unbilled bit" is unnecessarily verbose.

In this context, mentioning that they're American films might be arguably unnecessary. In practice, I doubt anyone would complain if it was included in an otherwise concise entry, but you seem to feel that all this information has to be included for the sake of it. It doesn't.

The end result is that your versions are *much* more longwinded than they need be. That's the problem- end of story.

It's ironic that you focus on the- admittedly pointless- repetition of the word "film" while shoehorning extraneous factettes in that serve no additional purpose to the intended aim of the page.

I'm not claiming that the old- or current- version was perfect (I put back the fact that the 1932 film was a drama and the 1951 a comedy as these are major distinguishing characteristics). Nor that everything you added was bad.

However, the issue under discussion is bloat contrary to the agreed guidelines, and I don't see that your explanation justifies (nor even properly explains) any of it in the case above.

Ubcule (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubcule:

Your words (the link to which you provided above) were: "It would very helpful to us for you to clearly explain your reasoning behind that specific edit (i.e. how it represents an improvement) with respect to the guidelines". I had hoped that my initial detailing of the matter, above, would have been sufficient, but since you state that it not "even properly explains", I will strive to provide greater specificity.

I understood your words to contain two questions — "Why did you feel the need to edit the That's My Boy dab page at all?" and "Why did you edit that dab page in such a manner?". I assume you agree that the first question was answered by my points 1, 2, 4 and 5 above and that you are not contending that the original content of December 5, 2011 was fine in its original state and in no need of revision.

As for the second question, it goes to heart of the ANI discussion in that I have, for the past 10 years, been adding more detail to disambiguation page descriptions than other editors find necessary. No one has claimed that the detail I added was in any way false or defamatory, but that it was just excessive. The simple explanation in regard to your words, "not even properly explains" is that the additional detail represented the manner in which I expanded the entries on all dab pages which I edited in all those past years.

Since I responded yesterday [to User:Boleyn's question at ANI] with the words that "[A]ll my future entries will be pared to the bone", here is what my January 5, 2012 edit would look like if I made it today:

That's My Boy may refer to:

• That's My Boy (1932 film), American college football drama
• That's My Boy (1951 film), American comedy
• That's My Boy (U.S. TV series)
  , 1954 CBS sitcom
• That's My Boy (UK TV series), 1981–86 ITV Yorkshire sitcom

The two subsequent entries (added later in 2012 [January 22 and December 25]) I would have edited thusly:

• That's My Boy (2012 film), American comedy
• "That's My Boy", song by American satirist Stan Freberg from 1957 album A Child's Garden of Freberg

The explanation for the slightly longer text in the last entry is because of its problematic nature due to the absence of a link for either "That's My Boy" or A Child's Garden of Freberg, but primarily because it lacks

WP:DABMENTION within its sole link, Stan Freberg

. The additional detail (slightly) helps its viability.

If I omitted explanation of any detail which you would still like clarified, please let me know and I will attend to it. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't meet DABMENTION, we don't add it to a dab. A dab is there to help you find info on WP - there seems to be no info on WP on that song. Google is for generally finding info. Boleyn (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I edited this dab page was on January 5, 2012. The Stan Freberg "That's My Boy" entry was added nearly a year later, on Christmas Day 2012. I did not wish to return to this page again, because when I edited dab pages in the past, I felt obligated to enhance the text of each entry. Also, because I am a fan of Stan Freberg, I did not wish to be the one deleting this addition. Over three years later, I had no choice but to mention this fact in the context of this discussion. The ultimate decision regarding this entry's continued existence I will leave to others. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner:

The request was made in the context of a discussion regarding excessively long entries.

In your original explanation above, yes, you explain the other changes (some of them improvements as I've acknowledged).

However, you argued the case for your additional content as if the issue to be justified was only an extra word here or there (e.g. nationality) when the obvious fact of the matter is that your entries added far, *far* more than that... which was the whole problem being discussed in the first place.

I made this quite clear with reference to a specific example (see "this gets to the heart of the matter" onwards) yet you've still failed to acknowledge that, let alone justify or explain how any of the obvious bloat and fluff I pointed out was supposed to aid a dab page.

Yes, your would-be new version of the 2012 page is far more concise and close to the intended style... well done. You know exactly what's required, and to be blunt I suspect you always did- you just didn't need to bother otherwise until the threat of a ban came along. Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

It's quite clear that the reason you've constantly evaded any explanation or justification for this is that it's *not* remotely justifiable within any plausible interpretation of the guidelines and never was. You had your own pet idea for what you wanted a dab page should be and weren't bothered that it was at odds with the agreed consensus so long as you could avoid coming out and admitting it.

I think we've discussed this enough now.

Ubcule (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubcule:

Although we may have "discussed this enough now", a proper exchange of ideas should never end in bitterness and rancor. If I did not reply to this post, then phrases such as "failed to acknowledge", "[T]hanks for wasting everyone's time", "evaded any explanation" and "avoid coming out and admitting it" would (probably) remain as the last words on this matter, at least on this page.

It frequently helps to step back and take a wider view. Needless to say, we are all unpaid volunteers here. Although we have agenda-driven nationalists, fanatics, acolytes and deniers edit-warring daily on these pages, this discussion did not involve any such extremes. Those of us who do devote years of our lives to Wikipedia, must genuinely believe in what we are doing and be convinced that our work will be appreciated by posterity or, at least, live on in the infinite great cloud. There may be some for whom it is just a time-killing day-to-day hobby, but would we expect those with such an editing philosophy to last long?

I genuinely felt that some or most Wikipedians would really appreciate being able to browse through a 150-name dab page such as John Williams (disambiguation) and enjoy the page, itself, reading it for information and enjoyment. As I wrote in answer to Boleyn (in April 2014): "These disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one (such as William Lawrence). After all that work, it would seem a waste that no Wikipedia users could appreciate a strongly-detailed disambiguation page with all the links tested, all entries in chronological order, with vital dates and nationalities clearly indicated and sorted (in the case of longer pages) by professions or genres. Surely, some users must feel that it is of use to them, since there are indications that the pages have been visited".

There was, indeed, one benignly disapproving inquiry on my talk page in 2008, then nothing until 2012 and so on. As Boleyn wrote at ANI, "I'm embarrassed I didn't start this discussion myself years ago, but I hate confrontation of any sort". The nationalists and the edit-warriors quickly draw attention to themselves and are just as quickly dispatched, but my dab page editing did not draw widespread ire and I even received a few scattered "thank you" notifications for my dabs. It took swpb to bring this to wider attention and result in a (relative) chorus of disapproval. Of course I know and knew what other dab pages looked like and could always have written them in that extremely short style which I demonstrated above, but I genuinely felt that I was improving their appearance and that the critics simply did not have the time or the inclination to devote to the effort required.

Of course, the threat of a ban concentrates the mind. It is pointless to swim against the tide or beat one's head against the wall. A strongly-held principle in a noble cause is highly commendable, but this is not that cause. As for "[T]hanks for wasting everyone's time", I didn't call this meeting nor did I have any control over it. We return to the fact that we are all unpaid volunteers who devote our time to the extent that we are willing to do so. I had no idea how many Wikipedians disapproved of longer dab entries to such a degree that they would be willing to ban me from editing them. There comes a point, however, at which one must admit that one's efforts would be best directed elsewhere. I regret that you feel time was wasted or, more specifically, that I caused it to be wasted, but to the extent that everyone who cared deeply enough about the matter came to the discussion, participated and shared ideas, we all gained from the effort. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner: Your attention was explicitly drawn to the guidelines in (at least) 2008, 2011, twice in 2012 and in 2015. You confirmed that you were aware of MOSDAB back in 2008.

Regarding the April 2014 comment to Boleyn (which I hadn't previously read in full). To me...

"it would seem a waste that no Wikipedia users could appreciate a strongly-detailed disambiguation page "

...does make explicit that your aim was to add as much detail as possible, contrary to both spirit and wording of the guidelines you were aware of (regardless of any self-imposed "one line limit" rationalisation/excuse).

As for

"I genuinely felt that I was improving their appearance and that the critics simply did not have the time or the inclination to devote to the effort required."

The comments- mine included- repeatedly made clear over several years what the issue was. Is this chronic

not getting it

?

I felt you wasted everyone's time because you forced them to revert or alter your edits (to match the agreed guidelines) over several years during which you knew the guidelines but continued to evade them until it was necessary to open a longwinded discussion at

ANI

, then refused to acknowledge or address the core issue until this point.

If you chose to "spend hours, sometimes days" of your own time making changes you had been advised for years were against the agreed guidelines, well... I'm afraid that was entirely your decision. While I'd rather you'd used that time more constructively, this doesn't oblige us to keep the unnecessary changes, and perhaps your effort would be better directed in future to adding such content to articles themselves (where it belongs) rather than editing dabs.

Ubcule (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit; While I said pretty much all I wanted to above, I appreciate that it might come across as more hostile than intended, so I'd like to make clear that I've no personal animosity towards you and wish you all the best with your contributions towards Wikipedia in other areas. Ubcule (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubcule: My thanks for your returning to add the kindly-worded closing sentence. I would have left those words as the last item in this discussion, but decided that some of the points raised (in the sentences which you wrote before that one) should receive a reply.

First, a minor point, but one still requiring clarification, concerns 2011. While three (April 14, July 4 and August 21) of that year's postings on my talk page centered upon dab pages, none mentioned the length of dab page entries. Moreover, during the August 21 posting (User talk:Roman Spinner#Quick Note), it was I, in an ironic turnabout, who counseled another user with the quotation "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link". Anticipating the comment, "too bad you didn't take your own advice", I should explain that the other user slightly expanded (and added extra links) to my already-lengthened descriptions.

Next, the important point is that while I have been aware of MOSDAB from my earliest days, I still felt that, although I was approaching/touching the limit of the not-specifically-delineated term "short", I was still not overstepping it. I was also encouraged by the fact that, between my first edit in January 2006 and my 10th anniversary in January 2016, I had been contacted on this subject by only you and three (Jwy, Boleyn, Midas02) other Wikipedians. if my dab page editing pattern had been as egregious and dismissive of warnings as is now claimed, I would surely have been inundated with complaints.

If anyone had complained to me about having their time wasted (such as Boleyn's indirect complaint in The Young Lovers edit summary of February 6, 2014, "Can I keep editing Wikipedia when I'm wasting all my time with this?", I would never have responded with a suggestion to use their time more productively than deleting informative details, but I must, at least point out that the above comment "perhaps your effort would be better directed in future to adding such content to articles themselves (where it belongs) rather than editing dabs" implies that I was adding original content to dab page descriptions that should have been added, instead, to the articles. In reality, of course, my descriptions consisted of brief fragments which came directly from the articles, rather than depriving those articles of any data which I inappropriately shifted to each respective dab page description.

My concluding sentence will echo yours in that I, likewise hold no personal animosity towards you and hope that we can collaborate, on a Wikipedia-wide scale, in improving… all that is in need of improvement. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]