Talk:Oddjob's hat

Bowler, really?

Oddjob's hat is flat on top. If this is a bowler it's certainly non-standard. I'm not a hat expert by any means though... 130.159.81.110 (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you check, one of the sources refers to it as a bowler. No doubt it would be non-standard, how many bowler hats do you know of have a chakram in the brim! The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Let the merge discussion begin... here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The hat has an independent existence, having been displayed and auctioned separately long after the actor has died. The fact that there have been two separate TV shows dedicated to the hat shows a remarkable degree of notability and merger would tend to overwhelm and unbalance the article about the character. Note that all but one source in the article about the character is, in fact, about the hat. Warden (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support The two are inseperable and not "independent". The clue to their inter-dependence lies in the title: "Oddjob's hat. Having two articles - one about the character and one about the hat, really is rather ridiculous overkill. Both can be dealt with properly in one article, which is balanced and well-sourced—and there are more than enough reliable secondary sources available to cover the Oddjob as a character in his own right. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• They are obviously separable as the hat comes off and may be purchased, used, worn or tested by another person. We have plenty of articles about distinct pieces of clothing such as White bikini of Ursula Andress, Wedding dress of Lady Diana Spencer, Anthony Eden hat, Sam Browne belt, &c. Warden (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just don't agree, I'm afraid. The hat is essentially an extension of the character with a tiny amount of excess use outside that character, and I don't see the point in having two articles about what is essentially the same thing. Additionally, this is a tiny stub and really doesn't merit a stand alone article on that basis: a merge with Oddjob, where most of this stub could form a section of its own, is the most logical and sensible way to go. - SchroCat (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Again per WP:GNG, there are sufficiant sources that use the two separately. For example in the Weapon Masters programme source Oddjob is only mentioned once (and in costume context only) and contributes little towards discussion about the hat. Granted the two do have a strong connection but that doesn't mean they are nessecarily inseparable. I cannot see how merging this with Oddjob can be done without either focussing too much on the hat in the Oddjob article causing a WP:COATRACK and/or WP:FRINGE or losing some of the info about the hat in the merge. I would also point out that as you said, it has use outside of the character then I would say that that would be sufficiant to keep the two separate as it shows that the hat is beyond just another film prop. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• And furthermore to the comment about this being a stub, as I pointed out on the AFD, It appeared on the front page as part of DYK and DYK's rules don't allow stubs to be promoted to the front page so therefore it can't be a stub. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't know that about the DYK when I judged this to be a stub: I made my judgement based on the state of the article, which falls into the category of "stub". Trying to justify a non-stub status based on the DYK rules seems to be doing things the wrong way round really. - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think so, after all DYK nominations are checked at least 3 times by contributors and admins as well so if there was a problem with this being decided a stub by any of them, then it would never have made it to the main page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Following the merge decision of the AfD, all the information and references have now been moved across into the Oddjob article. The Merge discussion has been closed and the article re-directed. - SchroCat (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)