Jump to content

Talk:WAGs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Melanie Slade

[edit]

Hi there. Having looked at the article for Melanie Slade, and after some discussion on the talk page of the article, there is a suggestion that her article be merged with this one as she is not notible enough to have her own article. Comments? Lynnathon 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging Melanie Slade. The WAGs article was substantially re-written about a week ago. I do not think the article about Melanie Slade should simply be deleted, but it should not be merged with this one either. I have added a ref to MS.--IXIA 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mention?

[edit]

I'm a little cautious of mentioning that there's a debate on wikipedia about Melanie Slade's article. I tend to think wikipedia should avoid mentioning wikipedia unless it would be odd not to. Plus whether or not she ends up getting a wikipedia article will be evident on this page without a mention. If she doesn't her link will go red, and if she does it will stay blue. How into keeping that sentence are you? Vickser 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--112.211.85.184 (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)==Wife or Girlfriend?==[reply]

I'm sure you can have WAGs in the plural but surely most players would not have both a wife and a girlfriend (at least not openly or unless they were awaiting divorce). Therefore the singular WAG is meaningless. Surely "Wives or Girlfriend" should be the phrase to collpase into a new acronym? Dainamo (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's because some find the term, "WOG" offensive, although they could use "GOW" instead.--Steven X (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dainamo was trying to be funny... But they are clearly not --81.77.210.185 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some people have had irony bypasses Dainamo (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason!

[edit]

I'm not that committed. The point being made is that, in a short space of time, someone has gone from being virtually unknown to being the subject of much attention and debate. I'm not drawing attention to the W article as such - indeed I avoided putting a link to MS myself (someone added that), but included a few sentences about her, which I think are nevertheless worthwhile, mainly to help avoid the article about her being dumped here! (In fact, poor though it is, it's been retained for now.) The ref seemed to me a good (attestable!) illustration of Andy Warhol's point about people being famous for 15 minutes and what it might mean. But if you feel strongly, I'll take it out .. Thanks for your thoughts. Best wishes--IXIA 09:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, on reflection, I think the Slade section does stick out a bit; and there is still an article elsewhere. So I've merged it with the earlier section about who the Wags were - and taken out the Wikipedia ref.--IXIA 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazeta Esportiva

[edit]

I'm not entirely sure the following belongs: "Brazilian newspaper Gazeta Esportiva described the WAGs as 'anorexics addicted to shopping with hollow lobotomised heads'." First of all, there's no citation. Second, I think it's sort of unnecessary. If a source is found, I think we should probably at least rephrase it. Vickser 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamelia Categorization

[edit]

I think that the Jamelia section is original research and should probably be edited out. Any thoughts/objections? Vickser 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do object. It's based largely on reported statements. It could be re-cast though. Why take it out without waiting for a response?!--IXIA 21:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I put the note up and waited over 24 hours. After no response, I proceeded, noting in the edit summary that I was still open to discussion on talk. Vickser 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of re-instating a shortened and revised version that omits what might have been seen as original resaerch. I think there is a distinct angle here to be recorded. --IXIA 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That new version looks fine to me. Vickser 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - and sorry if my note yesterday seems a little brusque. Grateful for your advice. I think this one is now nearing its natural end for the time being! Best wishes--IXIA 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, and no hard feelings. As I've just written, I put it up for discussion, waited 24 hours, and when I didn't hear anything, took action. I'd still like to talk about whether or not Melanie Slade should have her own section. Also, I spotted a mirror article on CHAPs (Celebrity Husbands and Partners) and was planning on putting them in later. It mentioned "SWAGs" for summit wives and girlfriends, but I can't find an original article for SWAGs. Any chance you've spotted one? Vickser 20:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added SWAGs, etc and also removed the separate para on Melanie Salde which largely dated back to a time when it was being debated if there should be an article about her. I've shifted a sentence or two earlier on so that there's a x-ref and moved some of the residual material to the Slade article. A ref to her is needed also to make sense of the "Father ..." quote later on. IXIA 18:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other useage of WAGs that isn't soccer

[edit]

There seem to be no mention of WAGs in other sport as one of the ealier useage of term was also at golf's Ryder Cup which according to the press some times ago, they reported that it wasn't just the golfer's that are being competitive and getting some media space, it was the WAGs as well...

...all you have to do is wait for the forthcoming tournament for that to happen

Willirennen 13.42 28 July 2006

Thanks. Have added a short ref to Ryder Cups of 2002 and 2004. But, as you say ...IXIA 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody has removed the Ryder Cup ref and a rather vague sentence was inserted in its place. Have now taken out completely to avoid to-ing and fro-ing. --IXIA 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting it in, I only found out it was removed yesterday by these non-golfing people and placed it into a new section so that it cannot be removed, you can chect it out in this bit...WAGs in other sports

Willirennen 14.18 1 September 2006

Quite right. Thanks.IXIA 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cricketing WAGs

[edit]

The following sub-paragraph:

Cricketer's WAGs": Minki van der Westhuizen - aka Slinky Minki - topped a poll of fans’ favourite Cricket Wives And Girl friens conducted by the cricket game website Stick Cricket. “Minki is a cricket fan’s dream woman. She’s sleek, sexy and with a successful career to boot,” Chris Berry, Stick Cricket’s director said. “Cricketers attract a finer class of WAG. While football is a game for chaps copping off with Chavs, cricket is a game for gentlemen going out with goddesses” [56];

does not really fit the "tone"of the article and is placed in the wrong section anyway. Does anyone disagree with the proposition that it would be better accommodated under the very brief article on Minki van der Westhuizen? IXIA 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved this paragraph to the article about Minki van der W. IXIA 22:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous WAGs

[edit]

I have removed the list as it is very pointless, plus many of these are never going to get their own articles especially 1 that has been afd'd. Metallicash (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jessica Taylor the CWAG.JPG

[edit]

Image:Jessica Taylor the CWAG.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 Wikipedia: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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fw1DVD.jpg

[edit]

Image:Fw1DVD.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 Wikipedia: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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in WAGs

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of WAGs's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "autobiography":

  • From Steven Gerrard: Gerrard, Steven (2006). Gerrard: My Autobiography. Bantam Press. pp. 10–14. ISBN 0-593-05475-X.
  • From Roy Keane: Keane: The Autobiography. Penguin. 2002. ISBN 978-0-141-00981-0.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag under Lexicography

[edit]

What is this about? There are plenty of references to support what is said. IXIA (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

[edit]

The term 'WAGs' is a British Army term and refers to regimental functions and the-like, where the officer's and men's wives and girlfriends are invited to attend, i.e., bring your WAGs to the do tomorrow night. AFAIR, it's been around for ages, so it isn't a recent invention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.252.1 (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not John Terry

[edit]

"Both of these were allusions to rumours two years earlier about the private life of an England international player, revealed in January 2010 to be captain John Terry." The allusions in Private Eye were not stimulated by Mr Terry but another prominent player. BONNUIT (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicography

[edit]

I don't quite understand the box about original research. There are plenty of references to support the statements made. Should this be removed?IXIA (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! -- AstroU (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of how 'WAGs' is now into the pop culture: "20-hottest-wags"
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/12/23/revealing-the-20-hottest-WAGS-in-sports-today/21287512/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl16%7Csec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D525428990 -- AstroU (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WAGs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WAGs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WAGs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicography

[edit]

There has been some confusion brought into the lexicography section. “Sixties wag” has a separate meaning to WAG. A wag being a clever humorous person )male or female). The War-ag committee reference is also irrelevant as regards this article. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Cheryl Cole at the top of the article

[edit]

At the top of the article, as the prime example of what a WAG is, there is a picture of Cheryl Cole. The caption just says "Cheryl Cole (née Tweedy), singer with Girls Aloud", which doesn't explain why it's there.

Later in the article is a sentence saying Cole has "rejected the eponym". If she has rejected the label, why are we using her as the prime example of a WAG? In her opinion, the term is pejorative and she has expressly rejected it, so why are we insisting on applying it to her in the lead section? Consider any other pejorative term (e.g. for a race, nationality or culture), and what it would be like to put someone's picture there to illustrate the sort of person that the term refers to. I'm feeling too polite to list specific such terms, but just think about it for a second or two. I looked at the articles for several slurs and I did not find photographs of real people in any of them.

Moreover, I think the word "eponym" is not being use correctly here. The term is "WAGs", not "Coles" or "Cheryls" or "Tweedies". The term was not named after her. Perhaps it should use "epithet" rather than "eponym". (See wikt:epithet meaning #5: "an abusive or contemptuous word or phrase.")

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WAGs&oldid=1210215998"