Talk:bowler hat

Fashionable
I don't get it. Why does this definition try to say what is fashionable and not? --80.216.237.213 13:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

bowler hat
The type of hat is called a bowler not bowler hat hat. --Connel MacKenzie 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quite right, as the etymology at bowler clearly shows. -- Algrif 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is called both a bowler and a bowler hat. --Keene 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you then please provide some attestation for "bowler hat hat"? --Connel MacKenzie 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be very useful, but I'd be happy to provide links to show that bowler hat is a real word. --Keene 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this actually is in use. I am shocked.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please lay out the case for this deletion for me. Is the problem that "bowler hat" is a redundancy? Like "sandwiched between slices of bread". Is it just SoP and not a set phrase? (There are 1266 hits for "bowler hat".) Will the computer load of another entry with a "non-standard" tag break WMF? Is it even non-standard in places or in social classes where people don't wear them and may never even have seen them? Some people may just be confused by the words "wearing a bowler". I detect creeping prescriptivism. There may well be a case for deletion, but it is not apparent to me yet. I'm going to do my monthly re-read of CFI now. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I question this term, as I've never heard it called a "bowler hat" ever, only a "bowler." The 'pedia entry at that title seemed like a disambiguation gone awry, but alas, searching books yields a hint.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Um... the Wikipedia article is named bowler hat. I don't see how this wouldn't qualify as dictionary material. Globish 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has "notability" criteria which has nothing at all to do with our criteria, FWIW. --Connel MacKenzie 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Compare fedora hat, derby hat, and Panama hat, which are synonymous with, respectively, fedora, derby, and Panama. Yet, for some reason, an entry s.v. Panama hat seems appropriate to me and one s.v. fedora hat does not. This may be because Panama has other meanings whereas fedora does not; note that bowler, for me at least, has the hat as its primary meaning, so bowler hat is in the fedora hat category for me. I imagine for many people bowler means primarily someone who bowls, so that we should keep bowler hat if we keep Panama hat.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, not everyone calls it a bowler. Bowler hat is quite common.--Dmol 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some kind of US/UK difference here? I have rarely heard it called anything other than a "bowler hat", as a distinct 2-word phrase - unlike with fedora or whatever. Widsith 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a US/UK difference - it is almost always (though not very often these days) called a bowler hat in the UK (I just assumed "bowler" was short for "bowler hat") SemperBlotto 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a US/UK thing as much as a generational difference maybe. If you told someone in the US "He's wearing a bowler" today you might get a funny look; bowler hat they'd immediately think of Charlie Chaplin, etc, etc. I specifically remember in the 2002 version of The Time Machine set in New York they talked about everyone wearing identical bowler hats though. Who knows. Globish 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a US/UK thing at all; I've only heard "bowler hat". I think Connel's making a joke of some sort, with his request that we provide cites "bowler hat hat". —Ruakh TALK 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Kept as per consensus. Misunderstanding. --Keene 02:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for deletion - kept
Kept. See archived discussion of January 2008. 07:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)