Talk:WAGs

message: 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)
thread_title: Melanie Slade

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  There is a reason! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Gazeta Esportiva

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Jamelia Categorization

message: 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)
thread_title: Cricketing WAGs

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of Famous WAGs 

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

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fw1DVD.jpg

message: 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: 
From Roy Keane: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:WAGs]] 

message: What is this about? There are plenty of references to support what is said. IXIA (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag under Lexicography

message: 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)
thread_title: Origin

message: "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)
thread_title: Not John Terry

message: 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)
replies: text:  Yes! -- AstroU (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lexicography

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on WAGs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070309065831/http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/sport/article511049.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/article511049.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060715110505/http://www.seitenblicke.at/stars/starstories/artikel/4833/detail to http://www.seitenblicke.at/stars/starstories/artikel/4833/detail
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627174214/http://www.cricket.mailliw.com/archives/2006/11/01/slinki-minki-the-fans-favourite-wag/ to http://www.cricket.mailliw.com/archives/2006/11/01/slinki-minki-the-fans-favourite-wag/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016220215/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport.cfm?id=971752006 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport.cfm?id=971752006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lexicography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture of Cheryl Cole at the top of the article