Jump to content

Talk:That's My Boy (1981 TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

As per WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO the link to phill.co.uk is not a valid link as it is not an official site for the subject, nor is it a widely reputable source (WP:RS). The site does not even identify itself by telling us who the owner is or who made it. It just looks like a fansite of someone who likes British comedy. Furthermore, external links on any Wiki article page (as per WP:EL) should be kept to a minimum and the site contains no relevant information that cannot be added to the article anyway, so its usage is not required. Also, as the site has an Amazon link on it, it could be construed that adding the site to the wiki article is merely a form of advertising for the site owner to obtain revenue.79.66.41.131 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that's all totally rubbish. It's not an external link, its a reference, very different. It is an acceptable source for the episode list, there is no "official" source for such a list, and this is quite acceptable. Fansites can be acceptable, and this one is. It is also rubbish about the Amazon link. We even use Amazon ourselves to reference, and to suggest that we can't link to a website because they link to Amazon is ludicrous. I really suggest you actually read the rules correctly (and maybe get an account?).--UpDown (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what you're doing. If you are calling this a reference as opposed to an external link, then please refer to WP:REFB and read the first section on "Good references". It clearly states that:
You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, and authorised web sites. Blogs, MySpace, YouTube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not acceptable nor is original research (e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research), or another wikipedia article.
Phill.co.uk is NOT an authorised website. It appears to be nothing more than a fansite for somebody who likes British comedy programmes. There is NO justifiable reason for linking to it as it only includes very basic information about That's My Boy and does not include any information that would warrant a link. The issue of the fansite having an Amazon link on it means the site owner gets commission from sales, which suggests that the only benefit of linking to the site from the Wiki article is to benefit the site owner. Lastly, it is only necessary to cite a source for direct quotes and for material that is likely to be challenged, as per WP:CS. There is nothing in the That's My Boy article that would warrant this, and even if there were, phill.co.uk is still not a valid source. As for getting an account, I already have one thank you very much - not that I would be told what to do by the likes of you. 79.66.90.97 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you are wrong. This is a perfectly acceptable website, as is sitcom.co.uk, for instace. You hatred of it puzzles me. There is no "authorised" website to give use the episode list, if there was that would be better, but there is not. This is a reliable website. It is not linked for information - AS I'VE SAID - its a reference for the episode list. Articles should have references, otherwise they could be tagged with no ref tags. Please ask admins whether it is an acceptable reference before removing again. And if you have an account, why not use it?--UpDown (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but YOU are wrong. Who is to say this is a "reliable" website? You? Is it your site? It's no different from quoting IMDB as a source. And just because there is no authorised site is not a reason to put an unauthorised one in its place. Yes, articles should have references where its warranted - but they should be VALID ones. There is one for a BBC comedy guide on there (I'm sure everyone would agree that the BBC are an authority on British television, even if it wasn't one of their programmes). You don't necessarily need an external reference for the episode list unless there is something controversial in it, and then a citable source would be needed to back the information up. The phill.co.uk site is not a recognised authority on this subject, despite the fact that you personally don't have a problem with it. 79.66.90.97 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your irration hatred of this site still puzzles me. But regardles you appear unable to listen. I am contacting another user for a 3rd party opinion.--UpDown (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an irrational hatred of the website, and it is ridiculous of you to suggest so. It is merely an inappropriate site to use as a reference for the reasons I have already stated above. I raised the issue on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard several days ago, and an administrator there agreed the site is not a reliable source. I see that you also contacted an administrator yourself and were told the same thing here . Now that you have been proven wrong, I trust that will be the end of the matter.79.74.34.172 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 March 2018

[edit]
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: move the 1981 series to That's My Boy (1981 TV series) and the American series to That's My Boy (1954 TV series), and not move the 1963 series, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– Due to the presence of 1954's That's My Boy (U.S. TV series), both British series need to be analogously disambiguated with "UK" as well as with the year of initial production.     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The US TV series calls it "largely forgotten", is it really notable? If it's not then a move to that level of disambiguation wouldn't necessarily be needed. May need to put this on hold until that much is proven.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the "largely forgotten" comment was unsourced and has since been deleted. 37 episodes in primetime (9 pm) on CBS in the relatively early years of television seems like a lot to forget, although since it was 63 years ago, the people who watched it are now old enough that many of them have indeed forgotten a lot, are no longer with us, or aren't using the internet to edit Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I read, you consider years to be somewhat primary over country in disambiguation, and so consider that we would only need to add country if two series aired the same year. I don't think that's how most readers would expect us to split them. Most series are of strong regional interest only, and so if two series differ by both year and country, generally, country is the more natural split. Here, we have 1 US series and 2 UK ones that all seem to be of only regional interest, and the US series need to be distinguished from either/both of the UK ones, which using "1954" for that one doesn't accomplish. Consider if there was only one UK series - we'd easily use just "U.S." and "UK" to disambiguate, not year. After that consideration, since there are two in the UK, adding year to those alone is appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote NCTV to you (and I believe you wrote this!): "Prefix the year of release or program debut – (1997 TV series). Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same region and/or across multiple regions." (emphasis mine) That's it. It's right there in the guideline. We do not "preemptively disambiguate" on Wikipedia. Disambiguation "by country" is completely unnecessary here – simple disambiguation by year is sufficient. If people want to create redirects with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, more power to them. But in this case, there is zero need for "double disambiguation" for the articles themselves here, and the articles should not reside at such titles – as User:IJBall/NCTV and double disambiguation shows, that is only necessary when you have two TV shows with the same title premiering within the same year in 2 different countries along with one or more additional TV shows with that same title in one of those two regions (that premiered in a different year): that is a very rare scenario indeed (and is not the case here). So, again, I oppose the current proposal as it is proposing unnecessary disambiguation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall:: and/or across multiple regions: The intent of that phrase is for those shows that have very strong cross-regional appeal or production ties (such as an international co-production like Lexx) and so using country would be confusing to fans. If another TV series were to be created with the same title, it would be odd to try to assign a country to it, so year is better. If you read the "country of broadcast" bullet which is intentionally presented before the year one, it says "Generally used when shows are distinct primarily due to region". Obviously, which disambig applies depends strongly on particulars of the various shows which are in conflict, which is why we have RMs I suppose. -- Netoholic @ 14:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My simple answer to that is that titles should use the minimum disambiguation required (i.e. no "unnecessary disambiguation), and guiding readers to the correct location is what (additional) redirects are for. I don't have a problem with redirects at That's My Boy (1963 UK TV series) and That's My Boy (1981 UK TV series) (or even at That's My Boy (1954 U.S. TV series)). But none of these articles should reside at those titles – in all 3 of those examples, the extra disambiguation is strictly unnecessary. In this case, simple "by year" disambiguation will distinguish the three articles – including the "by country" on top of that is incidental and is strictly unnecessary. (IOW, none of these three articles requires "double disambiguation" to be distinguished from one another...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to that is that this isn't "unnecessary" because our readers expect us to differentiate shows of interest mainly to a single region by disambiguating them with a regional identifier. Someone looking for the US show should not have to know the year it was made to feel confident. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Asked, and answered – that's what redirects are for. Also, the double disambiguation you are suggesting is actually likely to make it harder for readers to find what they are looking for... Also, the U.S. show is going to be found either way (again, thanks to redirects...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To editor IJBall: - I don't put a lot of stock in the merits of redirects as if they alone are a good response to ambiguity concerns. Certainly, redirects help prevent duplicate articles and are an aid to editors, but for readers they are largely useless except for the extremely rare occasion when someone manually types a URL. The key benefit for readers when we put into practice unambiguous articles titles is in how the page is presented in the browser. The title is used for the hyperlink on a 3rd party search engine, its the name when someone bookmarks a page, and its the header when a student prints a page. In all these cases, our responsibility is to be as clear as possible and to use disambiguation methods that are of most benefit to the reader. In the case of television series, year doesn't communicate as clearly as country does when the series are of separate regional interest. Year is useful when a reader might get confused between series of the same name in their country. And year+country does the best when we have situations like this were there is both separate regional interest and, within one of those regions, further ambiguity which is resolvable by year. -- Netoholic @ 12:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but support alternative disambiguation. We should be disambiguating by year only in these circumstances, country is superfluous. Articles should be moved to That's My Boy (1963 TV series) and That's My Boy (1981 TV series) per second method at WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation. --woodensuperman 15:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Films have the opportunity of being seen around the world and disambiguation by year, regardless of national origin, has been Wikipedia's standard method, except where further distinction is needed. TV series, on the other hand, have had such wide ranging audiences less frequently and are mostly regionally oriented. As a result, indication of origin is more specific to TV than to works bound for the cinema.
As for details specific to this nomination, a bit of history may put those into perspective. The first so-named entry to be created, on 10 June 2006, was the 1981 British sitcom That's My Boy. None of the seven other titles currently at the dab page had entries at the time and the dab page itself was not created until July 2009, when the 1932 and 1951 films as well as the 1981 sitcom, which was moved at that point to That's My Boy (TV series), made up the new dab page's initial entries.
On March 12, 2011, the entry for the US series was created as That's My Boy (1954 TV series) and, in January 2012, the two series were moved to analogous headers, That's My Boy (American TV series) and That's My Boy (British TV series).
On 21 May 2014, the entry for the second UK series was created as That's My Boy (1963 TV series). Earlier that month, on the 5th, the headers of the other two series had been moved to That's My Boy (UK TV series) and That's My Boy (U.S. TV series),
Thus it has remained for nearly four years, through today, and will remain so if there is no consensus. The nomination was submitted in the hope of finding an analogous form for all three TV titles.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Roman Spinner: I would say that there actually is consensus currently demonstrated in favor of moving the articles to That's My Boy (1963 TV series) and That's My Boy (1981 TV series). (Meanwhile, That's My Boy (U.S. TV series) can probably stay where it is...) Where there is not consensus is for the "double disambiguated" titles as per your original proposal, which I believe I have shown above is simply not necessary in this case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall: In effect, the sole move you are actually proposing is That's My Boy (UK TV series) → That's My Boy (1981 TV series), while keeping the headers of the other two That's My Boy TV series unchanged. Under my proposal all three same-named TV series could be listed on the That's My Boy dab page using only the links to their main headers — no other details needed. But under your proposal, two of the series would be disambiguated by the year of initial production, while the third series would be disambiguated — for no discernible reason (unless additional explanatory text is appended) — by its national origin. The allowance, in your initial posting, that all three series may be disambiguated by year, at least had consistency, but I do not see consensus for that form, either.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively, yes. While all three could be disambiguated by year (and I would not oppose that), it's arguable that That's My Boy (U.S. TV series) needs to be moved from its current title (there is already a redirect at That's My Boy (1954 TV series), so while it could be moved to that title, I really don't see the point...). With the two UK shows, we're stuck – That's My Boy (UK TV series) will have to point back to the disambig. page no matter what. At that point, those two articles just need to be (minimally) disambiguated from each other, and so the "by year" solution comes in to play. But there is no need for "double disambiguation" in this case, and doing so would lead to unnecessary disambiguation which is avoided on Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The one detail with which everyone will agree is that That's My Boy (UK TV series) does indeed qualify as incomplete disambiguation and has to become a redirect. As for the parenthetical forms, I am posting notices at the talk pages of three WikiProjects in the hope of additional input.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:That%27s_My_Boy_(1981_TV_series)&oldid=1199810846"