Talk:Boondocks (expression)

The show, the song, and "rural"
Both this page and "The Boondocks" were created to refer to the comic strip, The Boondocks, then later the television show that developed from it. A single song by a single artist by no means negates a twenty some-odd episode television series or a former nationally syndicated comic strip to the point of needing a disambiguation page to distinguish the two. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of users who search either "Boondocks" or "The Boondocks" expect to be referred to the page that has the greatest amount of notability correspondent to the word "Boondocks," which is, of course, the television series or the comic strip, the latter of which is made readily available from the Boondocks television article.

For the sake of compromise, I have added a message at the top of the Boondocks TV series page directing people who, for whatever reason, typed "Boondocks" (a 1940s Americanism) expecting to be referred to the article, "rural", or who, more understandably, wanted the article about the song.

Regardless, neither the Americanism nor the song should take from the recognition The Boondocks has garnered for itself over the eight years of its existence, especially not to the point of having "The Boondocks" or "Boondocks" link to anything but a page directly corresponding to it. —GrittyLobo441 08:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Boondocks" without the definite article refers to a rural area. However, "The Boondocks" may refer to either the television programme or the comic strip. Reginmund 16:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * People searching for "Boondocks" or "The Boondocks" are most likely looking for the show or the strip. Whereas both "Boondocks" and "The Boondocks" were created specifically for the purpose of redirecting people to the comic strip, both were changed to redirect to the show once it had become established and the strip was cancelled. Still, the comic strip and everything else pertaining to The Boondocks links uncomplicatedly from the show's article, which now serves as the focal point for all things pertaining The Boondocks. In my opinion, there is no need for a disambiguation page and "The Boondocks" should certainly not redirect to such a sparse, dispensable disambiguation page.


 * As for "Boondocks", in keeping with the spirit that this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, "Boondocks" should direct users to whatever page they are more likely to be seeking which is, presumptively, something having to do with the comic or the show. People looking for "rural" will search "rural", and even if they, for whatever reason, do not, an "other uses" addendum has been added to the top of The Boondocks TV article directing such confused people to the disambiguation page. —GrittyLobo441 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just another parasitic case of recentism. The word "boondocks" has been around much longer than the programme and the strip. It is unfair to say that "boondocks" primarily refers to the programme. People who are searching for rural will get to rural but people searching for boondocks will want to know what "boondocks" are. "Boondocks" is not a television programme or comic strip, The Boondocks is. You seem to be misinterpreting WP:NOT incorrectly. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that doesn't mean that we cannot have articles on common nouns. It means that we cannot have dictionary entries. Does rural look like a dictionary entry to you? Reginmund 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

With the definite article, "The Boondocks" may refer either to the strip or the programme.


 * This is not recentism. This is an overreaction on your part caused by whatever flimsy logic on which you seem to be basing this accusation. You’re acting under the presumption that “boondocks” lacks alternative definitions and are using your own judgment to decide which definition of “boondocks” most people associate with the term, redirecting the page in due manner. Regardless, this page wasn’t created to direct people to articles which may or may not pertain to the article most pertinent to whatever definition of “boondocks” they had in mind. It was created to direct people to the comic strip. Had someone, at any point during Wikipedia’s history prior to the creation of this page, decided that “boondocks” absolutely must redirect to “rural” to prevent mass confusion, they would have created this page expressly for that purpose, in which case your accusation may have merit. Indeed, however, this page was created for the express purpose of redirecting people to the comic strip. Apparently no one deemed it proper to have “boondocks” redirect to anything but the comic strip before it was created to do so in November 2004. And no one thought it necessary to significantly alter this arrangement until very recently. If it was not proper to alter the arrangement before The Boondocks became a television show, it is certainly not proper now. Consequently your recentism argument is groundless. —GrittyLobo441 07:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not make personal attacks by saying that by logic is "flimsy". I could say the same for yours. Nor is this an ovverreaction on my part which I have no idea what you are talking about. Please do not accuse me of such actions because I know that I didn't overreact. I am just stating facts. If you want to make a real rebuttal to my point, don't make it about me. The fact that you think that "boondocks" is an obscure word just goes to show that yes, this is recentism. Neither you can judge how most people associate the term. Also, it doesn't matter what the redirect was originally created for. The purpose of Wikipedia is to edit it, hence help make it better. It is no excuse to say that just because nobody ever redirected the page to "rural" before, doesn't mean that it should go there. That shouldn't either judge whether or not my accusatons have merit. Consequently, your argument is completely groundless whatsoever, has no merit to disregard the fact that this is blatant recentism as you have proved it more than once with your post and the fact that you cannot think of a better excuse than personally attacking me shows your weakness and pride in not wanting to admit that you are wrong. Reginmund 14:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The irony, here, to which I presume you are oblivious, is that using a false ad hominem claim to discredit my argument is, itself, argumentum ad hominem – the actual fallacy. It essentially involves an attempt to make it seem as though I’ve attacked you personally so as to make your "personal attack" ("weak", prideful) somehow defensible. Nevertheless, I apologize if you took what I said personally.


 * More to the point, you claim that the "obscurity" of the word "boondocks" makes this all about recentism. My position all along has been that so long as no one thought it necessary to associate the term "boondocks" with "rural," someone, at some point, took an initiative and created the page "boondocks" to serve as a term to be associated with the comic strip. This arrangement stood for years until recently.


 * "Recentism," on the other hand, is someone thinking that Ratatouille (film) should be placed at "Ratatouille," and what is currently occupying "Ratatouille" should be moved to "Ratatouille (food)." That would be recentism. This is not. This is an attempt to determine what makes a word, obscure though it may be, worth searching for in Wikipedia, then adjusting the redirects accordingly. —GrittyLobo441 23:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When you make statements such as calling my arguments "flimsy", henceforth, putting more emphasis on my ridicule then your actual point goes to show your weakness in proving your point so that you must revert to personal attacks to distract from the subject matter. I don't particularily enjoy you ridiculing me or my arguments as I could do the same for you. Yet you continue to veer away from the subject matter by staging an argument as if I have framed you which is blatantly incorrect. Just because I ask you to remain civil, doesn't mean that I want to discredit your argument as the irony is in fact, I have gone over the details of your argument which makes your accusation of me deliberately attempting to make it seem as if you attacked me hypocritical, especially when it is obvious that you have made a personal attack. I, personally would rather continue with the subject matter but if you do not cease to disrupt, I will feel no need to continue this discussion with you.


 * Please do not make false claims regarding my actions. I never claimed that the obscurity of the word makes the subject about recentism. I said that if you regard "boondocks" as being primarily used to refer to the programme, that is an argument fueled by recentism. Ratatouille is a fine example of recentism. The same applies to "boondocks". Both terms are common nouns that have recently had their namesake taken to refer to either a film or television programme. Yet, both still retain their definitions regardless of what media phenomenon may be synonymous with them. The fact that the page was originally created for one purpose serves as no excuse to keep the page. An argument as to where to direct a redirect should discuss why it should go to a certain place, not where it pointed before. Otherwise, determining where a redirect should point would just be a race to see who could get to their computer first. Reginmund 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Flimsy" in no way implies ridicule – neither to your argument, your character, nor you. Indeed, I asserted that your argument was flimsy and explained why. It was by no means a personal attack, as you seem to have convinced yourself. And whether or not you believe it was, by turning around and attacking me, you were being hypocritical. Furthermore, statements such as "I, personally would rather continue with the subject matter but if you do not cease to disrupt, I will feel no need to continue this discussion with you," imply a tone of conceited contemptuousness inappropriate for someone claiming to be the purveyor of civil debate. Don’t disavow yourself of responsibility given the likely possibility that you simply made a judgment error while reading what I posted.


 * Regarding why I believe the Ratatouille example to be different from this: you said the words retain their definitions, but we have already concluded that this is not a dictionary, so this fact alone does not justify why one noun is immune from "recentism" and another, seemingly, is not. Someone, at some point, created an article explaining what ratatouille was. So what did the film get when it became relevant? A specific link at the top of "ratatouille" anticipating that people searching for "ratatouille" expected to be directed to the article for the film. Whoever created “boondock” (or anyone who ever read that article) never thought it necessary to create “boondocks” for the express purpose of redirecting people to “boondock.” The first person to create the article “boondocks” did so because there existed a comic strip so entitled. I believe this to be a result of “boondocks” not being a widely used or known word. I, therefore, conclude that the thing most widely associated with the term is the show and/or comic strip – not the definition.


 * As I’ve explained, this is a case which requires assessment as to what makes a word worth searching for on Wikipedia – in this case the definition or the show. Defaulting to the definition is not the uniform rule. There are exceptions and I believe The Boondocks has a strong case for such deviation given that when the article "boondocks" was created, The Boondocks was already a nationally syndicated comic strip. Now it is a nationally televised show, so its relevance has increased since the creation of the article "boondocks," not decreased. —GrittyLobo441 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Flimsy" puts more emphasis on how my filibuster is written and less on why, in your opinion whether or not it may be flimsy. When you go on about how "flimsy" my argument is. It makes you appear more disposed to ridicule me. You asserted that my argument was flimsy, however you didn't state why. You put words in my mouth that I did not say. Yet, again you are making more personal attacks as if I am in denial, that "I am trying to convince myself" that you had personally attacked me. No, I am not trying to convince myself of anything. I don't appreciate conversing with a user who is more disposed to attack other users for reasons that he/she cannot fully understand, henceforth, he/she must make them up. Furthermore, I don't know otherwise how to tell you to stop being incivil without you implying that I am "conceited". Then let me be candid: Stop being incivil. It is you who should not disavow yourself from the fact that yes, you were incivil and that this kind of behaviour is clearly unconstructive to a consensus-building enviornment.


 * Just because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, doesn't mean that we cannot have entries regarding common nouns. Yet, just because nobody ever created a redirect from boondocks to boondock, doesn't disregard the fact that it should redirect to boondock. Say that a production company decides to make a film called Staplers. Then by what you are saying, it would occupy the space of "staplers", but it turns out that this is a red link. Does that mean that just because there was no redirect previously created for staplers to redirect to stapler, that the film should occupy "Staplers" and not "Staplers (film)"? I don't think so. This hypothesis neither makes "boondocks" an obscure word.


 * The fact that "The Boondocks" is a nationally syndicated strip or programme doesn't make it superior in usage to its original definition. Defaulting to a trade mark name because it is a supposedly more popular term isn't a uniform rule either and the timeline of article creation is not a factor in this discussion. Let alone, the name of the programme and strip is "The Boondocks" while the redirect is simply "boondocks" omitting the definite article. They are two obviously different names completely irrelevant to each other. I don't see any better reason in distinguishing these uses. Or would you suggest that we redirect "The Boondocks" to "booondock"? Reginmund 03:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "It makes you appear more disposed to ridicule me." Appearances aren’t always what they seem, especially on the internet. The human mind has a tendency to read words, for example, on a computer screen under the assumption that the unseen author of those words has a specific intent other than what is clearly written. You have one cognition telling you I’ve insulted you personally, and another telling you that the first cognition is erroneous. Since, as I have said previously, "flimsy" in no way implies ridicule, and that despite this fact I have, indeed, apologized that you took it personally, your conclusion that my use of that word "makes [me] appear more disposed to ridicule [you]" is a personally-derived conclusion on which you are basing all the accusations you have made to this point. Maybe you’ve never been insulted before, so you can’t distinguish insults from non-insults?


 * By personally attacking me while at the same time bemoaning personal attacks makes you seem hypocritical. By pontificating about your dialectical superiority given the previous condition, you make yourself seem conceited. By patronizing me given these two previous conditions, you’ve opened yourself up for personal attack. I could swear you’re goading me into saying something that is actually an attack against you, rather than a creation of your imagination. But since you’ve read my user page, you may be aware that I "maintain a strict policy advising against all personal attacks" so, not being a hypocrite, I’ll let the opportunity pass.


 * It’s interesting you should bring up "staplers." First of all, if a film were created with that name, I believe it would be entitled to that space, yes. Secondly, "boondocks" is a word. "Boondock" is not. Therefore your plural/singular argument in this instance does not work. Here’s an arrangement I could live with: you want to move "boondock" here? Fine, since there’s no such thing as a "boondock." But I want, and have indeed wanted long before we began this edit war, to move "The Boondocks (TV Series)" to "The Boondocks." There is nothing on that disambiguation page that could not be dablinked from the top of "The Boondocks." After all, "wolf" redirects to "gray wolf" even though the word could, if you look at the disambiguation page, refer to dozens of things. Moving "The Boondocks (TV series)" to "The Boondocks" would not sacrifice anything. Then add a dablink at the top of "Boondocks" directing people to "The Boondocks" and vise versa: problem solved. —GrittyLobo441 20:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let me rephrase that. It shows that you are more disposed to ridicule me. When you discuss how I write my post, especially with negative connotations in an obvious attempt to distract from the subject matter. It is ridicule, let alone appearing to be ridicule. None of this is personally drived. It is blatant that you behave in an uncivilised manner and that you are a difficult user to converse with. To say that something doesn't imply ridicule isn't the ultimate argument winner either because by definitions of the word, it is obvious that in the context that you used it, the word does imply ridicule. If you would be more mature and stick to the subject matter without ridiculing other users, then your arguments would actually have some credence. In the civilised world, we do not ridicule other people simply because we do not agree with them.


 * Now you continue to veer from the subject matter with false accusations of personal attacks which makes me assume that you have nothing left to say so maybe I shouldn't take you seriously. Hence, label you as a troll, shun you and revert any attempt of redirect changing that you try to make to suit your POV. Now you are saying that because of my dialect, whatever you think it may be, I feel that I am somehow superior to you. Obviously, this goes to show that as you cannot find a weakness in my post to expose, you have to make one up yourself. I'm sorry, but "being right for the sake of being right" is not the ultimate argument winner. You'll have to do better than that. Then you go on about how because of my logic, simply because I made amends to stating my point, I am somehow asking for a personal attack. Once again, you continue to fabricate ideas that simply because I made a point, I am patronising you and am a conceited fantasist. The mere fact that you cannot make a rebuttal to a simple argument without making vehement personal attacks and lies to support them while you falsely claim to oppose personal attack makes you nothing more than a hypocrite, and before you accuse me of that being a personal attack, mature yourself and understand why you are a hypocrite.


 * We don't disambiguate simply by plurals over their original uses. That is why Cars (film) and Cats (musical) are where they are. That would be why a film called "Staplers" would be at "Staplers (film)" making your "who got to the red link first" argument in this instance not work. If "boondock" isn't a word, the discussion isn't a matter of where "boondocks" should redirect but to move "boondock" to "boondocks". Especially because in this instance, there is no reason to direct "boondocks" to "The Boondocks (TV series)". However, "The Boondocks" may either refer to the strip or the programme. Reginmund 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let me rephrase that. It shows that you are more disposed to ridicule me. When you discuss how I write my post, especially with negative connotations in an obvious attempt to distract from the subject matter. It is ridicule, let alone appearing to be ridicule. None of this is personally drived. It is blatant that you behave in an uncivilised manner and that you are a difficult user to converse with.


 * Point to something specific pertaining to what you describe here.


 * To say that something doesn't imply ridicule isn't the ultimate argument winner either because by definitions of the word, it is obvious that in the context that you used it, the word does imply ridicule. If you would be more mature and stick to the subject matter without ridiculing other users, then your arguments would actually have some credence. In the civilised world, we do not ridicule other people simply because we do not agree with them.


 * And yet, you continue to ridicule me without true rational basis.


 * Now you continue to veer from the subject matter with false accusations of personal attacks which makes me assume that you have nothing left to say so maybe I shouldn't take you seriously. Hence, label you as a troll, shun you and revert any attempt of redirect changing that you try to make to suit your POV.


 * You can label me whatever you want. You have made it readily manifest that you confine yourself to some kind of sanctuary of insolence, imprudence, and animosity which prevents you from recognizing your own hypocrisy or admitting fault while simultaneously making you quick to criticize others for these very attributes you claim to look down on.


 * Now you are saying that because of my dialect, whatever you think it may be, I feel that I am somehow superior to you. Obviously, this goes to show that as you cannot find a weakness in my post to expose, you have to make one up yourself.


 * Obviously, this goes to show that when you misconstrue a word's meaning, you make one up that serves your "argument" – in this case, that I am making things up thereby demonstrating my argumentative ineptitude. This is highly ironic because I used the term "dialectical superiority" pointing out the contradictions in your actions and what you claim to represent; i.e., your demonstrated abhorrence for personal attacks, fallacies, and deviation from the subject matter despite your own tendency to use such tactics, furthermore criticizing others regarding these things without making proper judgment as to whether or not such criticism is warranted. To realize why, perhaps, this imbalance between what you say and what you do makes you hypocritical, you need first to recognize the imbalance.


 * Then you go on about how because of my logic, simply because I made amends to stating my point, I am somehow asking for a personal attack. Once again, you continue to fabricate ideas that simply because I made a point, I am patronising you and am a conceited fantasist. The mere fact that you cannot make a rebuttal to a simple argument without making vehement personal attacks and lies to support them while you falsely claim to oppose personal attack makes you nothing more than a hypocrite, and before you accuse me of that being a personal attack, mature yourself and understand why you are a hypocrite.


 * For someone who took so much meaning from one word, it is difficult to understand how you could not sympathize with me making conclusions about you from what you type. The difference being, of course, that I said your words, as they're written, make you seem hypocritical, conceited, and patronizing. It's more of a warning than it is my personal feelings towards you. If it was not your intention to seem hypocritical, conceited, or patronizing, perhaps you should alter the tone you use should you prefer people not coming to such conclusions, as you seem to take them so personally.


 * We don't disambiguate simply by plurals over their original uses. That is why Cars (film) and Cats (musical) are where they are. That would be why a film called "Staplers" would be at "Staplers (film)" making your "who got to the red link first" argument in this instance not work. If "boondock" isn't a word, the discussion isn't a matter of where "boondocks" should redirect but to move "boondock" to "boondocks". Especially because in this instance, there is no reason to direct "boondocks" to "The Boondocks (TV series)". However, "The Boondocks" may either refer to the strip or the programme.


 * I guess what I was trying to say was that since "cars" has always, for all I know, redirected to "automobile" and "cats" has, similarly, redirected to "cat," "staplers" may be open to special consideration if a film with that title were ever made, the argument being that cars and cats have more value than staplers which is why, I assume, no one currently cares where "staplers" redirects. If anyone should care enough to take the time to redirect "staplers" to "stapler" still, with regard to a potential film/book/whatever title, a value judgment would have to be made.


 * Like I said, I think "boondock" should be moved here, simply because whoever made that page must not have been aware that "boondocks" must always be a plural noun. Moving that page here would be correcting an error.


 * As for "the boondocks," it has been my opinion all along that "The Boondocks (TV series)" alone deserves that space. A while ago, "The Boondocks" – at the time an article for the comic strip – and "The Boondocks (TV series)" switched places, moving the article for the TV series to "The Boondocks" and the strip to "The Boondocks (comic strip)." A small edit war ensued, resulting in a disambiguation page that I thought and continue to think is unnecessary. In other instances where a comic strip has become a show (especially with American comic strips), whichever has the most prominence gets the article without the parentheses. For example, "Dilbert" is a currently-running strip that had a short-lived TV series. Therefore, the strip was and is the most prominent media concerning the word "Dilbert."


 * Since the creation of "The Boondocks" disambiguation page, "The Boondocks" strip has been discontinued so that its creator can devote his time to "The Boondocks" television show, which is airing a second season and which I believe has been green-lighted for a third. I would suggest moving "The Boondocks (TV series)" to "The Boondocks," scrapping the disambiguation page, and using dablinks to direct people to, for example, this page, the comic strip, and the page concerning the musical piece. Alternatively, "The Boondocks" could have a link at the top directing people to the disambiguation page. I feel it is ridiculous for a phrase that literally has only two direct, intimately related meanings to have the phrase itself redirect to a disambiguation page. I would suggest turning "the boondocks" into an actual article by letting the television show have that space and letting anyone who needs to do so click a link at the top of it to see alternative meanings. —GrittyLobo441 11:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

''Well, let me rephrase that. It shows that you are more disposed to ridicule me. When you discuss how I write my post, especially with negative connotations in an obvious attempt to distract from the subject matter. It is ridicule, let alone appearing to be ridicule. None of this is personally drived. It is blatant that you behave in an uncivilised manner and that you are a difficult user to converse with.'' Point to something specific pertaining to what you describe here.


 * So, did you forget through the stream of glyphs that you called my argument "flimsy"?

''To say that something doesn't imply ridicule isn't the ultimate argument winner either because by definitions of the word, it is obvious that in the context that you used it, the word does imply ridicule. If you would be more mature and stick to the subject matter without ridiculing other users, then your arguments would actually have some credence. In the civilised world, we do not ridicule other people simply because we do not agree with them.'' And yet, you continue to ridicule me without true rational basis.


 * Now, ironically you are using an ad hominem. It is you that has continued to ridicule me with no rational basis or even made an argument with rational basis as to why you called my argument "flimsy" and how it wasn't meant to be offensive.

''Now you continue to veer from the subject matter with false accusations of personal attacks which makes me assume that you have nothing left to say so maybe I shouldn't take you seriously. Hence, label you as a troll, shun you and revert any attempt of redirect changing that you try to make to suit your POV.'' '''You can label me whatever you want. You have made it readily manifest that you confine yourself to some kind of sanctuary of insolence, imprudence, and animosity which prevents you from recognizing your own hypocrisy or admitting fault while simultaneously making you quick to criticize others for these very attributes you claim to look down on.'''


 * Yet, again you veer from the subject matter, consistently proving yourself to be a hypocrite by evading to take consequences for your actions. What you just stated makes no relation to the original argument and if you continue to drive your irrelevant personal attacks towards me off the beaten path as you are to stubborn to admit that you are wrong, your integrity among other encyclopaedists will be at risk. It is obvious that if you cannot control your emotions by making personal attacks just because you cannot make a proper rebuttal to a simple argument, you need to admit to your hypocrisy. As you continue to evade me with more personal attacks, you still haven't made a single, simple, sensible, attack-free argument as to how I am a hypocrite or why it is acceptable to ridicule others.

''Now you are saying that because of my dialect, whatever you think it may be, I feel that I am somehow superior to you. Obviously, this goes to show that as you cannot find a weakness in my post to expose, you have to make one up yourself.''

'''Obviously, this goes to show that when you misconstrue a word's meaning, you make one up that serves your "argument" – in this case, that I am making things up thereby demonstrating my argumentative ineptitude. This is highly ironic because I used the term "dialectical superiority" pointing out the contradictions in your actions and what you claim to represent; i.e., your demonstrated abhorrence for personal attacks, fallacies, and deviation from the subject matter despite your own tendency to use such tactics, furthermore criticizing others regarding these things without making proper judgment as to whether or not such criticism is warranted. To realize why, perhaps, this imbalance between what you say and what you do makes you hypocritical, you need first to recognize the imbalance.'''


 * Obviously, this goes to show that you are still using the idea that, ironically, the fact that I told you to stop attacking me, you not only continue, but you fabricate the idea that every claim I make, either proving you point incorrect, or to tell you to simply stop attacking me, you take it as a personal attack and fabricate more personal attacks, either in spite of me or in a bitter attempt to yet, again evade yourself from the subject matter. Then, topping it with calling me a hypocrite just makes you even more hypocritical as the arguments you used are simply fabricated.

''Then you go on about how because of my logic, simply because I made amends to stating my point, I am somehow asking for a personal attack. Once again, you continue to fabricate ideas that simply because I made a point, I am patronising you and am a conceited fantasist. The mere fact that you cannot make a rebuttal to a simple argument without making vehement personal attacks and lies to support them while you falsely claim to oppose personal attack makes you nothing more than a hypocrite, and before you accuse me of that being a personal attack, mature yourself and understand why you are a hypocrite.''

'''For someone who took so much meaning from one word, it is difficult to understand how you could not sympathize with me making conclusions about you from what you type. The difference being, of course, that I said your words, as they're written, make you seem hypocritical, conceited, and patronizing. It's more of a warning than it is my personal feelings towards you. If it was not your intention to seem hypocritical, conceited, or patronizing, perhaps you should alter the tone you use should you prefer people not coming to such conclusions, as you seem to take them so personally.'''


 * Think to yourself that maybe you should try altering your tone, attitude, and lose your disposition to criticise other users irrelevantly. Instead, take all of that negative energy and put it into something like a simple, well-constructed argument rather than a bad-faithed flaming personal attack. Fabricating accusations that I am conceited, hypocritical, and patronising are unnecessary and ironically when you make such false claims, you become conceited, hypocritical, and patronising.

Back to the subject matter, finally!


 * The revision history of an article or redirect is not necessary in determining where it goes. A redirect to from "cats" to "cat" hadn't been created until five years after the creation of "cat". When "cats" was originally created, it was a redirect to the musical. That doesn't mean that just because nobody cared to redirect the page to "cats" for five years, that it shouldn't happen. It isn't that nobody cares where "staplers" redirects, it is just that nobody ever thought about it.


 * What is still running should neither replace what was running. The strip has been popular for quite a while and despite it not being currently running, it still will be. That may make them both ambiguous. Dilbert on the other hand was the original usage to begin with, and is the primary usage now. Thus, the programme will of course get more media attention because it is currently running, however, the strip will not, simply because it is not running. This shouldn't be a reason. It is just another case of recentism.

Reginmund 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Recentism
Would anybody like to add input relevant to the discussion above? I'd be interested to hear it. —GrittyLobo441 23:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My take is that boondocks and the boondocks should redirect to boondock, the article about the geographical word (this is the current situation), and The Boondocks should redirect to Boondocks (disambiguation). Otherwise everything looks all right.--Father Goose 16:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Enh, scratch the boondocks as it doesn't exist. Anyhow, I wouldn't presume whether someone looking for The Boondocks is looking for the TV series or the cartoon strip -- disambiguation first is best.  I would assume that all non-capitalized uses are meant for the geographical word, with a hatnote directing people to the disambiguation page in case they meant one of the creative works.--Father Goose 17:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Without "the" it means the geographical word; that article points at the disambiguation page for those looking for something else. The recent comic and TV show should be in articles whose titles start with "The Boondocks", and whether those two articles should be merged is an issue for those two articles and not the other articles.  (SEWilco 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Wow! Civil, much? What is this whole discussion about? How dab pages should dab? Let the hair splitting begin...."boondock", singular, should point to the geographic article. "boondocks" and "the boondocks", plural, should point to the TV show, which has a short dab section at the top of the article, linking to both the comic, and the geographic article. Kiss and make up? Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 03:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discourse was simply a discussion under the guise of a series of misunderstandings which escalated to more discussions about civility and recentism under another guise of uncivil behavior, of which both parties denied starting, continuing, or participating in. Understand?


 * Your point about "the boondocks" and "boondocks" pointing to the television show was something I agreed with initially (before the above argument began, this article redirected to rural. I redirected it to The Boondocks (TV series) and an edit war ensued). It was, and remains, my position that a disambiguation page of any kind is not necessary.


 * However, as I was unaware of the existence of the article "boondock", my attitude is now thus: since "boondock" isn't a word (ongoing "discussions" here and here (see Boondock → Boondocks)), the article "Boondock" should be moved here with dablinks at the top, while "The Boondocks" should either be or redirect to the article for The Boondocks television show or comic strip. People keep redirecting "The Boondocks" to Boondocks (disambiguation). So lately I have tried to redirect "Boondocks" to Boondocks (disambiguation) and The Boondocks to The Boondocks (comic strip). Forthwith, people revert "Boondocks" such that it points to "Boondock" and "The Boondocks" such that it points to Boondocks (disambiguation). As a result, I created the page The boondocks (disambiguation) to which "The Boondocks" now points and have again redirected "Boondocks" to Boondocks (disambiguation) all the while remaining unconvinced as to why any disambiguation pages are needed, much less two.


 * But I think "Boondock" should be moved here with dablinks pointing to the page for the song, the comic strip, the TV series, or the disambiguation page containing all three. In my opinion, neither "The Boondocks" nor "Boondocks" should redirect to disambiguation pages, but if the former does, the latter should, too.


 * Also, I think one of either The Boondocks (TV Series) or The Boondocks (comic strip) should occupy "The Boondocks" with a dablink pointing to whichever page does not occupy it, simply because I believe typing "The Boondocks" is a request for only one of two things, and certainly not any form of the word "Boondocks" which does not always start with the definite article "the." —GrittyLobo441 21:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How I got here
Of course I can't speak for others, but I landed here while searching for the real (geographical) boondocks, as well as the song. I was wondering if there were other uses for the term that I'm not aware of, and sure enough, I'd never heard of the show and/or the strip before (I'm sort of immune to pop culture, since I don't watch much TV, etc). Anyways, I wanted to know how the term came to to mean a completely different thing in the song than the common use in referring to a rural location? In the song, the lyric it is stated that the boondocks is "the side of town I was born in" and not a rural location at all. Is this a colloquialism, obscure, or obsolete usage? Any insight? Anyone? Naas-T (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)