Talk:Paperboy (disambiguation)

Requested move (September 2015)

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: moved. The consensus is that the newspaper delivery subject is the primary topic for "Paperboy". Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– The wp:primaryusage of the term "paperboy" is the topic currently described at Paperboy (newspaper delivery). Editors linking to paperboy and readers following the link expect to connect to the topic, and will be surprised to arrive at the dab listing relatively obscure movies and literature. do ncr am 06:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 19#Paperboy recently closed and decided to move the current disambiguation page over a redirect. Since then the Paperboy (newspaper delivery) topic has been renamed and clarified to really focus on the Paperboy role. This RM seeks to move that now-stronger topic to the primary meaning and does not merely reverse the RFD. --do ncr am 06:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support clearly paperboy means paperboy. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, clear primary topic for the term. bd2412 T 14:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it stands, I believe there are sufficient alternative meanings to warrant the dab page to be the landing page (the case could probably even be built as per WP:DAB). As long as there is a clear unique article for the dictionary meaning of a 'paperboy'. One question though, what happened to the 'newspaper hawker' article on the dab list. They wouldn't be called paperboys in Britain, but could those newspaper vendors be called paperboy in American English? --Midas02 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you asking the question rather than presenting evidence one way or the other? bd2412 T 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's hard to say what boy newspaper hawkers would be called, because they don't exist, AFAIK. The exemption to child labor laws which allows boys and girls to deliver newspapers probably does not extend to news hawkers, I am guessing. Or maybe the development of pretty decent newspaper vending machines supplanted them. But there simply are no newspaper hawkers at all in the U.S. as far as I know, not at train stations or airports or other likely spots. Probably the facilities usually do not allow newspapers to be sold other than in vending machines or at fixed newstands (that usually sell magazines and gum and whatnot, too). And, if there is an under-aged person manning a newstand, legally or not, I am quite sure they would not be called a paperboy. I simply don't know if newspaper hawker-boys were ever called paperboys, when they did exist. --do ncr am 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Doncram. --Midas02 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Newsboy" was used for both newspaper hawker-boys and newspaper deliverers (per Merriam-Webster definition "newsboy" is one who sells or delivers, while M-W's definition for newsboy is deliverer only). "Newsboy" is displayed within Wikipedia article for several men who, as youth, sold newspapers on a train or at a specific street corner (within 20 edits in my contribution history up to "15:21, 5 September 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . James J. Stukel ‎ (Disambiguated: Paperboy → paperboy (newspaper delivery))"). --do ncr am 16:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, clear primary topic now that Paperboy (newspaper delivery) has been improved. --JaGa^talk 22:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other meanings (all except Josh Wilson (baseball) are entertainment ephemerals or literature) all seem to be derived from the meaning "boy who delivers newspapers". In my experience here in England, paperboys deliver newspapers to a prearranged list of customers and do not offer them for sale. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support both changes, per nom. Clear primary topic. Pincrete (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Anthony Appleyard's description, paperboys (even when they are girls), deliver not sell, never known child sellers in the UK. Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure, this is not targeting Doncram because one can only have the utmost respect for the work he does, but I am sick and tired of seeing this it's a clear primary topic ... "argument". There is no such argument, and it's nowhere mentioned on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So stick to procedures if you want to make a case. Otherwise you might as well delete WP:Primarytopic.

Here's what the procedure lays out:

Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
Wikipedia article traffic statistics or Wiki ViewStats traffic statistics
Usage in English reliable sources

I've run the first two out of curiosity, and the second seems to be far from conclusive. For the first, visitor statistics, here are a few samples (90-day stats from grok.se):

Newspaper delivery has been viewed 4996 times in the last 90 days (name of the paperboy (newspaper_delivery) article until yesterday)
The_Paperboy_(2012_film) has been viewed 42993 times in the last 90 days.
Paperboy_(video_game) has been viewed 14435 times in the last 90 days.
Paper_Boys has been viewed 1430 times in the last 90 days.

So I don't see the case. Feel free to comment, but please use solid arguments. --Midas02 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all convinced by media references. These overwhelmingly seem to focus on depictions of young male characters who deliver newspapers. I also think that instances including a leading "The", or separating the term into two individually capitalized terms "Paper" and "Boy(s)", are distinguishable. bd2412 T 17:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On determining PRIMARYUSAGE based on usage, I find editor Midas02's data on usage are interesting, but I agree with BD2412. And the usage data cannot break out what is most relevant: how many visitors to the disambiguation page went on to which option, and what did they think about the landing at the dab. Most of the viewers of Paperboy (video game) may have arrived by explicit links to it, or by their typing "Paperboy" at the search prompt and knowing to scroll down to select "Paperboy (video game)". And the video game seekers that did land at the dab probably were expecting that, while seekers of the newspaper delivery role were surprised. One could assert it would run the other way, however.
But PRIMARYUSAGE is NOT just defined by usage. The "procedure" at wp:PRIMARYUSAGE does suggest checking incoming wikilinks, article traffic, and usage in Google or elsewhere. But the article traffic aspect gets at only one of the "two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics", that a) "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term," and b) "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." In terms of long-term significance, paperboy as newspaper deliverer (starting in 1833) obviously has prominence over the "Paperboy" video game (of 1984, and based on the newspaper delivery role) and the "Paperboys" documentary (2001, profiling six newspaper deliverers). I believe it is a "clear primary target" over the movies titled "The Paperboy" or "Paper boys", too, by long-term significance reasoning.
And by another suggested measure of usage, the incoming wikilinks, my browsing finds all usage is like that of Jesse L. Brown, a navy officer who delivered newspapers in his youth. I checked a bunch and can't find any intending any different target. (And I have not sought and disambiguated any that did.) I believed that to be the case about incoming wikilinks but [it is a fair point that] I did not try to quantify that in my nomination. --do ncr am 23:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC) [revised 16:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Update that: In 20 edits just now I just disambiguated about 18 "paperboy" links to unambiguous "paperboy (newspaper delivery)" or to ambiguous "newsboy" or to unambiguous "newspaper hawker" (in my contribution history up to "15:21, 5 September 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . James J. Stukel‎ (Disambiguated: Paperboy → paperboy (newspaper delivery))"). These edits were based on context where it was clear which of Merriam-Webster definitions for newsboy (one who sells or delivers) and for paperboy (one who delivers) applied. Pipelinked "newsboy" was displayed within Wikipedia articles for several men who, as youth, sold newspapers on a train or at a street corner in the first half of the 1900s; i converted those to link to newspaper hawker. For other pipelinked "newsboy" ones where there was no additional info in the article, I converted the link to ambiguous newsboy. I converted links that were simply to paperboy to link to paperboy (newspaper delivery) where that was clearly meant (i think all in later half of 1900s). For some links simply to paperboy where context is early-to-mid 1900s I am not completely confident which is meant (does the current M-W definition apply for sure?), so I left those unchanged. There is one article (Dropmysite) where a different meaning is apparent: for "paperboy" as some software product. James J. Stukel is an interesting case where the boy, born 1937, was a newsboy who created a newspaper route to earn money, which seems to be an inbetween case. It is more entrepreneurial than paperboys of late 1900s who merely took over existing routes, and more like the newsboys in early or mid-1900s who actively sold papers. --do ncr am 16:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that the Monthly Disambiguation Challenge has encouraged some possibly incorrect changes to 22 articles. I.e., there were 22 articles linking to Paperboy that I wasn't sure about, in terms of whether they really meant paperboy as a newspaper delivery person, vs. whether they meant a newsboy selling papers at a corner.

For example, for Brazilian politician Leonel Brizola, who "left his mother's house at eleven, working in Porto Alegre as a paperboy, shoeshiner and other occasional jobs until completing high school and entering college", I would not be sure whether he worked as a newspaper hawker or a newspaper deliverer.

Without any more information, however, the links have been changed to unambiguously point to the newspaper delivery role only. These are:

If this move request went through, those articles would have been left linking to paperboy. Now they link to paperboy (newspaper delivery), which seems like a stronger statement. Maybe I am getting what I deserve somehow. But by this move request, I did not intend for inaccuracies to replace ambiguities. --do ncr am 14:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now what, should those 22 articles be edited to replace unambiguous paperboy (newspaper delivery) by ambiguous newsboy? And/or should a question be raised at each of their Talk pages?

I did myself change all instances of [[paperboy|newsboy]] to [[newsboy]] to head off changes like those, in edits with summaries "Disambiguated: Paperboy → newsboy (where display is "newsboy")" or "(where display is "newsie")", at:

I suppose what's going to happen next is that ambiguous newsboy is going to be featured in the Monthly Disambiguation Challenge, and where it is correctly ambiguous it will be replaced by guesses. I don't know how to head that off. --do ncr am 14:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of a newspaper delivery person being referred to as a "newsboy". bd2412 T 03:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Right, me neither.

But we are speaking of current usage, or our personal experience of that. Like, I was once a paperboy delivering newspapers (in the U.S.), and I never would have been called a "newsboy". And I'll say further, I experience the term "paperboy" as referring to one who takes over a delivery route, as I did; I don't know of any paperboys doing real "selling" and pioneering a new delivery route.
However, in the Newspaper hawker article, in the context of talking about the first newsboys (of 1833) there is this sentence: "These newsboys could either hawk to passersby on the street or establish subscription routes; many did both." It is using "newsboy" for both, and I am inclined to believe its usage is correct for the time.
Yikes, then I see that the paperboy (newspaper delivery) article is claiming 1833 as the date of the first paperboy, which may be correct, but its explanation is very incomplete for failing to mention that 1833 was the start of boys doing hawking for the same newspaper as well, and that they were probably all called newsboys not paperboys. And it now seems to be incorrect for claiming Barnie Flaherty was the first paperboy; the newspaper hawker article makes clear that Bernard Flaherty was notable for his news-hawking on the street, not for home delivery.
It is now seeming to me that "newsboy" is the modern wording for talking about the extinct species of newspaper hawkers only, but newsboy previously included home delivery too. (Maybe "newsboy" was/is fairly the term to describe a boy who is entrepreneurial and selling papers any way he can, including by pioneering a newspaper route?)
And it is now seeming to me that "paperboy" is the only modern wording for newspaper delivery boy, and means only that, but that "paperboy" might have meant "newsboy" in the past during some period(s) in some countries.
And it is now seeming to me incorrect to change all instances of "paperboy" in the biographies of men to point to an article only about the newspaper delivery person (because in the early- or mid-1900s it might also have referred to a news hawker).
And I believe it would be incorrect to change all instances of "newsboy" in the biographies of men to point to either the deliverer or the hawker.
So now what? Maybe this Requested Move should not go through, and the paperboy disambiguation page should say that "paperboy" is a term which now refers to newspaper delivery boys and girls, but in the past the term might have included newspaper hawkers. And similarly the Newsboy disambiguation page's current statement that newsboy could refer to either should be preserved and ratified. And while I think the newsboy links created by my changes were okay, I should go back through the edits mentioned above, to bring back usage of ambiguous paperboy in a number of articles?
But then we are back to there being many paperboy dablinks and many newsboy dablinks in the childhood sections of a number of men's biographies. Do we really want to tag them all as requiring disambiguation? I would rather not mar all those articles, when it is a minor ambiguity that is really not important in the context of the biography. How about creating a new non-dab page Newsboy or paperboy for those to be linked to? Or should those ones just be delinked.

I am confused. --do ncr am 21:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is pathetic. See my response here. Ok, no policies mentioned there, nor any sources, but we really do have to get a grip. The only "hawkers" in the UK, are those people who sort of gargle mucus in their throats and spit it out. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied there to the mistaken idea that this discussion is another debate about gender! Ridiculous. --do ncr am 06:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looking on Trove [1] Australia uses the term paperboy Victoria, WA & ACT use the term paperboy to refer to someone, generally a boy who sold papers like what is being referred to as a hawker here, NSW uses newsbooy the same way there is no distinction for those who delivered the papers. There is a distinction to those who have a permanent structure at corner compared to the peson who just get a couple of bundles of papers... I think the best fit is to have a dab at Paperboy because we have articles about the points that define different practices with terms many people wouldnt even consider the same. Then someone will quote WP:BIAS and want to add the definitions as they know them we'll years of edit warring re triggered every a new person comes to look Gnan garra 05:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The above two posts seem to be in response to my requests here and here, seeking more views. --do ncr am 06:00, 8 September 2015 (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.