Talk:Fat and Skinny

What is this about? Is it a literal translation of the Danish? If so, it should be deleted. Wikipedia does not give this as a nickname for either duo. &mdash; Paul G 12:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Requests for deletion

 * Fat & Skinny - It looks like this might be a literal translation of the Danish, in which case, it belongs in the (yet-to-be-written) Danish entry. Wikipedia does not give this as a nickname for either duo. &mdash; Paul G 12:48, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I would also be inclined to delete the Abbot & Costello and Laurel & Hardy pages. These are encyclopedic in nature, and the possible links to similar articles in other languages should also be there.  I also have concerns about including any ampersands in article titles.  These could have unexpected effects. Eclecticology 01:41, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed - despite the fact that these contain some translations, they are encyclopedic. To be deleted: Fat & Skinny, Abbot & Costello, Abbott & Costello, Laurel & Hardy. &mdash; Paul G 08:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree. The definitions are minimalist, not encyclopedic. A translating dictionary is a perfect place to look for things like this. In my family we've always used "Fat & Skinny" for both duos. Google finds 44 pages which use both Fat/Skinny and Laurel/Hardy and 1 for Abbot/Costello. Though the terms are hard to search for thoroughly and not exactly current in terms of the internet. &mdash; Hippietrail 02:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I concede that there is something of value in having these pages on Wiktionary. I have suggested elsewhere that it would be useful to have an appendix of fictional characters if only because of the translations.  See, for example, the numerous pages that have been added for Harry Potter characters with translations into various languages.  I now think they can be retained with minimal definitions, Wikipedia links and "and" rather than "&" (perhaps with the pages containing "&" redirecting to those with "and"). &mdash; Paul G 11:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've set up an appendix for these entries . Let me know if you think this is useful. &mdash; Paul G 15:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The value still seems marginal to me, though your google search suggests that "Fat and Skinny" should really only apply to Laurel and Hardy. I think that they were much better known internationally than the other pair.  Perhaps a quote where the term was used in reference to them would help.  Both pairs were real people so it does not seem right either to treat them as fictional characters.   Eclecticology 01:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RFV
Never heard of this. It seems to be a hyponym of Laurel and Hardy and Abbot and Costello. Could such a thing be a proper noun, as it claims to be? DCDuring TALK 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added citations, the entry could still be deleted: compare John Doe and Richard Roe, which has 10000+ Google books hits, but which is only John Doe + and + Richard Roe, and note that "Fat" and "Skinny" are used (in the citations) outside of the combination "Fat and Skinny". - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The citations support the existence of the collocation. But I don't that any of the citations show the expression as conveying the meaning of the definition given. The sense of "opposites" comes from the literal meanings of "fat" and "skinny" used as epithets and duo comes from there being two items linked by "and". Further, I really don't see the connection with Laurel and Hardy or Abbott and Costello. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to RFD. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

RFD 2
From RFV. There are three quotations which use the phrase on the citations page, but no consensus was reached on whether they verified the term or not, or on whether the term was SOP or not. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)