Talk:The Rats (novel)

Fair use rationale for Image:33-136low.jpg
Image:33-136low.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was not moved. There is a clear lack of consensus for this proposal. bd2412 T 23:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

– Currently there are four topics that are disambiguated from The Rats. Over the last 90 days they have received the following traffic:
 * The Rats (novel) → The Rats
 * The Rats → The Rats (disambiguation)


 * The Rats (American band) – 963
 * The Rats (British band) – 1200
 * The Rats (2002 television film) – 1535
 * The Rats (novel) – 4146

The novel clearly receives more traffic than the other disambiguated topics put together, and being a bestselling novel it probably wins out on the notability argument as well. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think there's a large enough difference for the novel to take primary position. From a simple google search, I see nothing like a primarity of meaning for the novel. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support given the large enough difference clearly demonstrated in the stats given, which meet the guidelines ("much more than any other and more than all others combined"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support per nom. Feels indulgent, but it fits with the guidelines. ENeville (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no need to claim a primary for such an ambiguous term. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To most people "The Rats" is "the rats" is whatever rats they are currently concerned with, not an old novel written in 1972. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Being old isn't a criteria, and I don't see how your opposition is founded on any of the disambiguation guidelines. Four topics have been disambiguated, one is a best-selling novel that has received scholarly coverage and receives more hits than the others put together.  In the context of the guidelines why isn't this the primary topic over the three other topics that also utilise the title? The two other editors who support the move have based the decisions on observing the guidelines, so by the same token, in what way is the book not the primary topic, as spelt out by the guidelines? By your analogy, The Wolves, The Snakes and The Dogs shouldn't be taken by articles about bands and geological features. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Borderline IMO, which is what the poll shows too. The stats are only just over the line, and the term is common, and the novel while undoubtedly important isn't very well known, surprisingly. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.