Talk:You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
As a formality, let's discuss the edit war over Carl. W. Stalling[edit]
I edited the article to state the obvious and undeniable (and extremely famous) fact that this song was repeatedly quoted in the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons. It's how many many people first heard the tune, and often the lyrics. This is a fact. Honestly, it should have been in the article from the start. But I cited a source. I was then told that the source was an open wikia, so it wasn't valid. Okay, I changed the source to the IMDb page for Carl W. Stalling, which mentions the (again, very famous) fact that Stalling loved quoting this song in those cartoons. That is not an open wikia. Paid editors there review every contribution before it's added. IMDb is cited in basically every Wikipedia article involving movies (and, after all, this song was introduced in a movie). It's one of the most commonly cited sources here. And again, I'm told it's not a valid source. The same editor tells me offhandedly that there are probably other things in the article that are improperly sourced but he/she doesn't feel like finding them. ?????? Okay, I've started the conversation. And let me make it clear, I will go to conflict resolution over this if we can't work it out. I'm open to suggestions. Again, please note, I went to conflict resolution over using IMDb as a source a few years back, and was upheld. It's nonsense to say it's not a valid source, even for a relatively obscure or questionable assertion--which this is not. This is about as questionable as saying 'the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.' So unless the actual objection is "I don't want this referred to in the article", in which case we have a different conversation, what's the problem with citing IMDb?Xfpisher (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- As per comments from other users in the article history, Xfphiser, IMDb is not considered a reliable source as it is user generated, in this case by someone called Mike Konczewski. If you're after further advice on what is a reliable source, I'd advise WP:RELIABLE. Looking at the IMDb item in question, I'd also note that it doesn't seem to actually back up the claim you're making: it says nothing about what the song is best remembered for, nor that Stalling had a particular affection for it, and I can't see any reference to Looney Tunes etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then you have several hundred thousand Wikipedia citations to erase. Some things on IMDb are user-generated, but they have to be reviewed by IMDb staff first. You can't just add them yourself. You submit them, and they are vetted, and if they check out, they appear--days and in some cases weeks later. As to no mention of Looney Tunes--honestly? Would you disallow a reference to William Shakespeare if it didn't mention the Globe Theater by name? This is getting weird. Before we get to conflict resolution (and if no compromise appears, we certainly will)--if I cut out the 'best-remembered' part (which is common sense, millions of people watched those cartoons on television growing up), can the edit stand? Because seriously, I went through this already on another article, and IMDb is a valid source for this kind of thing. Save us all some trouble. Or just admit you don't want Stalling referenced for some bizarre reason.Xfpisher (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- It remains an unreliable source, and the content in the user-generated page still doesn't match up with the claims being made in your edit. I'd also refer you, as others havedone, to WP:RS/IMDB. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. You can reference Stalling if you can find a source that is both reliable and supports the content you want to add. IMDb fails on both counts. If you think WP:RS/IMDB is wrong, you're welcome to raise that at a more central forum to try to get it changed, but until that happens, consensus is that it's not an appropriate source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I question this. In fact, there's probably no need for a source at all. It falls under the Common Knowledge clause (I read the relevant guidelines page for that)--and at Wikipedia, Common Knowledge doesn't necessarily mean common to everybody, just to a lot of people, not merely experts. If many Wikipedia editors, for example, know this song was frequently used in those cartoons, and know who Carl W. Stalling is (and I've known who he is since I was at no more than twelve years old, probably sooner), then it's really not necessary to prove what doesn't need proving. And in fact, just before my edit, we are told in this very stub article (that badly needs improvement, as we're told up at the top of this talk page) that this song "Is considered a standard." Really? By whom? Where's your source? Self-evidently, many people on the planet have never heard this song, or know that it exists, let alone that it's a 'standard', a rather vaguely defined category of music, you ask me, with no unquestioned authority to rule as to which songs belong to it. It's not universal knowledge--it's common knowledge. It would be silly to go looking for a book where some academic refers specifically to this song as a standard, and it's silly to have to cite a source for something so widely known that you can find scores of references to it online with a few clicks of a mouse button. You don't need an expert to tell you this, which is, unfortunately, why it's so hard to find an expert who ever bothered. But that all being said, I found something I hope will satisfy you--The Looney Tunes Songbook. The description of this book on the publisher's website mentions Carl Stalling's penchant for musical quotation, and specifically mentions this song. Carl Stalling should be mentioned in the article, since he was pretty much exclusively in charge of the music for those cartoons during the relevant period, and he was the reason this song was used not once but many many times in some of the most famous and influential animated films ever made, where the use of both classical and popular music was exceptionally important.Xfpisher (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- There may well be other details in the article that should be removed or better sourced, and there may well be other articles that use poor sourcing. Neither of those facts means that we can or should accept poor or no sourcing for this particular detail - we should instead be working to bring everything up to standard. The source you just added says, in effect, that Stalling used the song in Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies. It doesn't say why. It's a primary source, and to draw such a conclusion from it would be original research. Nor is that conclusion common knowledge, even if you believe - and I wouldn't agree - that Stalling is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The article is awfully short as is, a mere stub, which is something we as Wikipedia editors are supposed to remedy. Like add information that would be useful and interesting to the reader. You say my new citation is a primary source--I don't see how. The primary source would be the cartoons themselves. This is a scholarly work, that clearly mentions in its text that Carl W. Stalling quoted this song in those cartoons (along with many others). The edit in its current form only says that he was the musical director for those cartoons in that time period, an indisputable fact that does not need sourcing, any more than the authorship of the song does (and I'm sure many Wikipedia editors have never heard of Warren and Mercer, but it's still not something you're expected to prove, which is why this article cites no sources--other than Wikipedia itself, not an accepted source in this context--to prove it. No conclusions at all are drawn by me, no original research is involved (other than finding the source, which obviously doesn't violate that guideline). I'll acknowledge that I stepped very slightly over a line by saying the song was used so often because of Stalling's fondness for it, but that is no longer an issue. I don't even say that Stalling personally put the song in there (though self-evidently he did)--I merely point out that he was in charge of the music. Now the reader who is curious why he/she has heard snatches of this song so many times in those cartoons can click on Stalling's name, and be further illuminated. Problem solved. Unless you want to do a bit more stalling of your own? :)Xfpisher (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- There may well be other details in the article that should be removed or better sourced, and there may well be other articles that use poor sourcing. Neither of those facts means that we can or should accept poor or no sourcing for this particular detail - we should instead be working to bring everything up to standard. The source you just added says, in effect, that Stalling used the song in Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies. It doesn't say why. It's a primary source, and to draw such a conclusion from it would be original research. Nor is that conclusion common knowledge, even if you believe - and I wouldn't agree - that Stalling is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I question this. In fact, there's probably no need for a source at all. It falls under the Common Knowledge clause (I read the relevant guidelines page for that)--and at Wikipedia, Common Knowledge doesn't necessarily mean common to everybody, just to a lot of people, not merely experts. If many Wikipedia editors, for example, know this song was frequently used in those cartoons, and know who Carl W. Stalling is (and I've known who he is since I was at no more than twelve years old, probably sooner), then it's really not necessary to prove what doesn't need proving. And in fact, just before my edit, we are told in this very stub article (that badly needs improvement, as we're told up at the top of this talk page) that this song "Is considered a standard." Really? By whom? Where's your source? Self-evidently, many people on the planet have never heard this song, or know that it exists, let alone that it's a 'standard', a rather vaguely defined category of music, you ask me, with no unquestioned authority to rule as to which songs belong to it. It's not universal knowledge--it's common knowledge. It would be silly to go looking for a book where some academic refers specifically to this song as a standard, and it's silly to have to cite a source for something so widely known that you can find scores of references to it online with a few clicks of a mouse button. You don't need an expert to tell you this, which is, unfortunately, why it's so hard to find an expert who ever bothered. But that all being said, I found something I hope will satisfy you--The Looney Tunes Songbook. The description of this book on the publisher's website mentions Carl Stalling's penchant for musical quotation, and specifically mentions this song. Carl Stalling should be mentioned in the article, since he was pretty much exclusively in charge of the music for those cartoons during the relevant period, and he was the reason this song was used not once but many many times in some of the most famous and influential animated films ever made, where the use of both classical and popular music was exceptionally important.Xfpisher (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. You can reference Stalling if you can find a source that is both reliable and supports the content you want to add. IMDb fails on both counts. If you think WP:RS/IMDB is wrong, you're welcome to raise that at a more central forum to try to get it changed, but until that happens, consensus is that it's not an appropriate source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- It remains an unreliable source, and the content in the user-generated page still doesn't match up with the claims being made in your edit. I'd also refer you, as others havedone, to WP:RS/IMDB. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then you have several hundred thousand Wikipedia citations to erase. Some things on IMDb are user-generated, but they have to be reviewed by IMDb staff first. You can't just add them yourself. You submit them, and they are vetted, and if they check out, they appear--days and in some cases weeks later. As to no mention of Looney Tunes--honestly? Would you disallow a reference to William Shakespeare if it didn't mention the Globe Theater by name? This is getting weird. Before we get to conflict resolution (and if no compromise appears, we certainly will)--if I cut out the 'best-remembered' part (which is common sense, millions of people watched those cartoons on television growing up), can the edit stand? Because seriously, I went through this already on another article, and IMDb is a valid source for this kind of thing. Save us all some trouble. Or just admit you don't want Stalling referenced for some bizarre reason.Xfpisher (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Xfpisher, can I clarify if the citation is to the book advertised on the webpage, or the blurb on the webpage itself? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The link is to the blurb, created by the publisher of this book on its own website--the book itself can't be linked to. The google books entry for it has the same exact blurb, which mentions the song. The text of the book is not available online. I don't have a copy of the book, nor does the library I work for. But the blurb itself is prima facie evidence that the book refers to the song as being used in those cartoons. Since the article makes no assertions about why the song was used so often in those cartoons (other than the fact that Warner Brothers made the movie that song was written for and introduced in), the reference to Carl W. Stalling is merely to provide context for the reader to further explore the long and varied history of this song (and others like it) in popular media. There is absolutely not a trace of opinion or original research as it now stands. However, if I have to shell out for a copy of that book (and I can't read music), just to put up a non-clickable citation to a book most people will never see, that would sure as hell count as original research, as I see it. And I'm assuming I couldn't submit an expense form here. :)Xfpisher (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The text in this article attributed to this citation runs:
- "It was used frequently in the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons, under the musical direction of Carl W. Stalling, in part because Warner Brothers produced Hard to Get."
- In its entirety, Alfred Music's advertising blurb says ""The Looney Tunes Songbook features music used by Carl Stalling in the scores for Warner Brothers' beloved cartoons from the 1930s through the early '60s. Included are the familiar theme songs, tunes associated with various characters, Warner Brothers pop songs used as background music, and the wacky melodies of Raymond Scott. Titles: Merrily We Roll Along * The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down * Road Runner * This Is It! * What's Up, Doc? * Dinner Music for a Pack of Hungry Cannibals * In an 18th Century Drawing Room * Powerhouse * Reckless Night on Board an Ocean Liner * The Toy Trumpet * Ain't She Sweet * A Cup of Coffee, a Sandwich, and You * The Gold Digger's Song (We're in the Money) * Hooray for Hollywood * I Love to Sing-a * I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles * The Lady in Red * A Rainy Night in Rio * You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby * Hello, Ma Baby * I'm Just Wild About Harry * The Michigan Rag.""
- I can't see how that supports the statement that it was used frequently "in part because Warner Brothers produced Hard to Get"...? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Me neither. It's not meant to support that. That's just common sense. Warner Brothers made Hard to Get. Warner Brothers made Looney Tunes. They owned the movie rights to the song, and they liked cross-promoting properties of theirs across multiple platforms. Why Stalling used the song scores of times is speculation. I don't think the WB reference is. But if you don't agree, we can take out the 'in part because' thing. I just thought it was worth mentioning, since the article doesn't actually say who made Hard to Get. To be sure, the reader can find out from the article on that film. It wouldn't bother me. Somewhat awkward phrasing--didn't like the sentence that way. Let me try again--there. Added a reference to WB further up. Got rid of the 'in part because' thing. See what you think now. Xfpisher (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's better - it was that part that I was concerned was OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- My only concern was that one of the most significant facts about this song was left out of the article, and that is no longer the case. Readers who care enough to read something like this can make the connections themselves. Standards do seem to have tightened up a bit in the last few years, which is fine, but concerns for sourcing shouldn't get in the way of providing information, and I appreciate you both being willing to work with me here. I also appreciate not having to buy/borrow a book I have no use for, just to make a minor change to a stub article. In the words of Elmer Fudd (playing John Alden) "That'll be a dollar seventy five, COWWECT!" ;)Xfpisher (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's better - it was that part that I was concerned was OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Me neither. It's not meant to support that. That's just common sense. Warner Brothers made Hard to Get. Warner Brothers made Looney Tunes. They owned the movie rights to the song, and they liked cross-promoting properties of theirs across multiple platforms. Why Stalling used the song scores of times is speculation. I don't think the WB reference is. But if you don't agree, we can take out the 'in part because' thing. I just thought it was worth mentioning, since the article doesn't actually say who made Hard to Get. To be sure, the reader can find out from the article on that film. It wouldn't bother me. Somewhat awkward phrasing--didn't like the sentence that way. Let me try again--there. Added a reference to WB further up. Got rid of the 'in part because' thing. See what you think now. Xfpisher (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The text in this article attributed to this citation runs: