Talk:Saddlebag

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saddlebag article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cycling

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Human saddlebags[edit]

Recently there has been an editor adding an additional definition of saddlebags as "Excess/bulging fat protruding around a person’s hips and thighs (Informal - usually used in the pl.)". This was initially added at the bottom of the page, without a citation. I added a citation needed tag, and said in the edit summary "this is not the urban dictionary, do we really need slang here?". Another user removed the content (thanks Montanabw), but now it looks like an edit war is starting. The user who initially added the slang definition has reposted it a couple times, without making any comments on this talk page. This user is using "Ace Ventura Pet Detective" as a citation, and formatting the content in a way that is unconventional. I for one do not want to have this content added, as it is slang, unencyclopedic, and off topic. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely unsuitable. Slang doesn't belong here, and the image posted is offensive and sexist. I tagged the user's talk page for engaging in vandalism. If they keep reinserting it, we can go to AIV; I might anyway. The user account contribs indicate this is the only article they are editing, the edits are in the wrong format - looks like a wiktionary entry - and may be a non-English speaker, given some of the captions. Could be a vandalism-only account. Montanabw^(talk) 04:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Saddle bags" is a commonly used term used in the health industry and has been around for ages. Wikipedia absolutely does include slang when it's notable (see Gaydar, Big Apple and Shite-hawk for starters). Yes, this entry is in the urban dictionary. It's also in Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.Com. It is, in short, a common-use english term and it's odd that it's not at least mentioned here in passing. I totally agree that the previous entry was unsuitable. I put something better together and cited it appropriately (a major national newspaper and perhaps America's most popular health program). Ironically this is now the only part of the page that does have cites... --Irrevenant [ talk ] 23:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is undoubtably a place for your material in cellulite or a similar article. This article is about real saddlebags, not trivia or slang. If you wanted to put in a see also or a hatnote linking to the appropriate anatomy article, that could be appropriate. More than that is not. Montanabw^(talk) 02:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material consists of explaining that 'saddlebags is also a term for loose fatty flesh on a person's upper thighs or buttocks, that hangs like saddlebags'. People will expect to find it under this article just like I did - especially since I was looking for clarification of the term. (A link from here to cellulite would make sense, though). If the argument is that this article is specifically for Wiktionary's definition #1 for saddlebags then the appropriate way to is to handle that is a disambiguation page - but that would place the minor definition on the same level as the major one, which I doubt is what you're after. I did consider a 'see also' but how would you word that? You couldn't just put 'See Also: Cellulite' without explaining why that's on an article for saddlebags. This article is about 'Saddlebags' and that applies to all notable meanings of that term. I get that you don't like that particular usage of the word - it's not my favourite either - but it is a legitimate, notable, cited use of the word (the sentence I included had more quality cites than the entire rest of the article) and it deserves to be mentioned under this heading somewhere. So I'm open to finding the best way to integrate that definition into this article. Thanks. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 10:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A hat note seems like it would be fine. You could use the same wording I did (which I took from Wiktionary anyway). --Irrevenant [ talk ] 10:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it here is an example of the rampant sexism and systemic bias that plagues wikipedia. My comparison is beer belly, which dircets to abdominal obesity#colloquialisms I can live with a hatnote. Actually if you search for the word saddlebags rather than hitting "go", we also come across some insect species, so a dab page could also be useful Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]