Talk:Thot

Thot

That Hoe Over There Steezart (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Steezart: Source? —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

93, regarding this and this, why do you think this page should be a disambiguation page pointing to two living people? Who is reasonably going to type in "thot," which is known in the United States as a derogatory term for a woman, while looking for Duckie Thot or Nim Thot? If you reply to me on this here, I ask that you don't ping me since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The same reason Fuckface can redirect to Billy Ripken, or why Ligma exists despite 99.99% of people searching for it are expecting the meme. There are encyclopedic topics that have the word as a surname or given name. See MOS:DABNAME. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and there is no reason to exclude people's names from being searched just because a derogatory slang term has popped up. 9³ (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

93, "Fuckface" redirects to Billy Ripken because it is associated with him. Given that there are not a lot of "Thot" options, I fail to see why this page needs to be a disambiguation page for just two living people. If a reader is looking for Duckie Thot or Nim Thot, they are far likelier to type in their full name rather than "Thot." I don't need to be pointed to MOS:DABNAME or WP:NOTCENSORED. I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons for others to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I would also hazard to guess that people are associated with their own names. 9³ (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"Thot" is their surname. It is not directly tied to them in the way that "Fuckface" is tied to Billy Ripken, obviously. No one automatically associates the term thot with these two people. And either way, it's still the case that this page is not needed as a disambiguation page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page and the slang term bears no relevance to their names aside from the Witkionary template. This is perfectly valid even for just two people per WP:NOPRIMARY. 9³ (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And I don't agree that it needed to be or should be a disambiguation page. It was perfectly fine as it was. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for reverting this back to a soft redirect. 9³ (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

And I didn't give a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. As an experienced editor, I never do that. I essentially gave the same rationale that Uanfala gave below when stating "I don't think the names of the two obscure people are what readers are more likely to be looking for." It is guaranteed that readers are far likelier to be looking for the insult meaning, especially since we have articles on words, than one of these people under the term thot. I've already stated that "If a reader is looking for Duckie Thot or Nim Thot, they are far likelier to type in their full name rather than 'Thot.'" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a perfectly ordinary dab page. I'd point out that the word "thot" is completely unknown in (my version of) British English: remember this is an international encyclopedia, and there is no reason for these people and this place not to be findable by a dab page. If the US slang word is interesting and notable, create thot (word) and add it to the dab page. PamD 08:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a perfectly ordinary anthroponymy article. Partial title matches (such as those people) don't need disambiguating. This page could be turned into a disambiguation page with a given-name-holder list and surname-holder list, but the nav can also be handled by hatnotes if it's a {{given name|type=both}} article rather than a {{disambiguation|given name|surname}} non-article disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's an eligible anthroponymy article: we've got two unrelated names: with one person each neither passes WP:APONOTE, and you only list unrelated names on the same page if that page is a disambiguation page. – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

PamD, JHunterJ and Uanfala, I view this disambiguation page as completely unnecessary. But thanks for weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And, yes, I thought about what other meanings, besides the known U.S. meaning, the word might have. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, it's not a disambiguation page. Uanfala, I'm not aware of a requirement that the name origins be related. But if so, this could be turned into a disambiguation page. It just wasn't when I got here; it was a {{given name|type=both}} article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

JHunterJ, I was going by 93 stating "convert to dab," and the fact that MOS:DABPEOPLE is a section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. And it looks no different than a disambiguation page regardless, except that it doesn't begin with a standard definition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't think the names of the two obscure people are what readers are more likely to be looking for. I suspect most hits are likely to be coming from people who are either looking for the Egyptian deity (I, for one, can never get its spelling right), or want to know the meaning of the English word "thot" (whether or not they know this is slang). Given the prominence of this meaning and the fact that for most of its history this page was a soft redirect to the corresponding wiktionary entry, I think it will be in the best interest of readers if this definition is included in the dab page explicitly rather than linked via a little wikt sidebox that many readers probably don't even notice (nevermind the absence of an actual article to link to). – Uanfala (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of giving the derogatory meaning on the same page as living people, but I'm not going to object if that's best for the page. "I don't like the idea" is not a rationale I'm giving; it's just a personal opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the normal wiktionary link (which is normal-sized, not little) is sufficient for linking to non-encyclopedic information, such as a dictionary definition. That meaning has no encyclopedic prominence until it's covered by the encyclopedia (article space, not nav page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

Can you add this sentence?: "Thot is also a slang term for slut." And add this reference: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thot. Denkiden`s alt account (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a link to Wiktionary on the article, it goes over slang usage. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)