Talk:Fat Cat

Disambiguation page?
If this is a disambiguation page, then MOS:DAB applies. This means: The alternative is to have two Fat Cat pages, one for the slang, and one for the fictional character. Then this page can either be a dab page linking to those two articles, or one article is made the primary topic and hatnote-links to the other. – sgeureka t•c 09:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference section needs to go per MOS:DAB.
 * Without an article for the first entry, it is simply a dict-def. Dict-defs on dab pages either need to be trimmed and link to one other article (MOS:DAB, or they should be moved to wiktionary (MOS:DAB. Since fat cat (slang) doesn't have an accompanying article, option 2 would apply. Disambiguation pages that link to only one article are by definition not dab pages, and Fat Cat (Rescue Rangers) can be moved over this page.
 * Yeah, I can't tell if this in an article or disam page. I'm up for helping, but which direction should we take? the_undertow talk  01:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

2007-11-6 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 11:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Expand, merge or redirect
This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meaning and etymology of a slang phrase and provides some examples of usage. I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page. Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.

Options to fix the page here include:
 * 1) Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
 * 2) Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
 * 3) Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the wi template).
 * 4) Turn it back into a disambiguation page.

Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 4 for now. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy WP:Dicdef (itself a subpolicy of NOT) states that if no potential to be expanded beyond a dictionary definition, then there's grounds for moving it there and not having an article. You yourself admit that this is an option in this case. It has already moved beyond a simple dictionary definition, and has started to talk about the cultural significance of the word. Expand this entry, don't delete. And don't delete without consensus. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First, let's clear up a misunderstanding. It's a pet peeve of mine when people misuse the term "deleted" to refer to an edit with which they disagree.  This page was not deleted in the narrow way that we use the term at Wikipedia.  Deletion removes the page history.  Deletion can only be undone by admins with the special undeleted button.  This page was effectively converted to a redirect - an act which any editor can just do and which, as you demonstrated, any editor can undo without recourse to special admin powers.  And while every edit requires consensus, normal editing (including the movement or merger of content or even the conversion of a page into a redirect) does not require prior consensus. Okay, now I'll get off my soapbox and let's discuss the potential for this page. In my comment above, I admitted the theoretical potential for expansion of the page.  That doesn't mean that we wait forever or that we should never redirect a page.  I've read the page yet again and still can't find anything that rises beyond lexical content.  This page has the original definition, the more modern definition or connotation, an unconfirmed etymology, and an example of usage.  Furthermore, if you look at the most recent AFD discussion, there is already clear consensus that this doesn't work as a standalone page.  Four people who participated in that discussion argued that this was not a stand-alone page.  (Mostlyharmless was the only dissenter.)  When you look in some of the older AFD discussions and sort out the no-longer-relevant "delete because it's a vanity band" comments, the weight of consensus becomes even clearer.  The community has concluded repeatedly that this should be a disambiguation page.  Rossami (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no clear consensus to remove the content referring to the term - half the four comments endorsed that content. In any case, I've moved the content to its own page, as I feel the term is significant enough (notable) to justify its own article. I hope this resolves our dispute. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That didn't really solve anything. You just moved the WP:WINAD violation into a separate page.  Rossami (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)