Talk:Underwear
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Underwear article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Underwear. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Underwear at the Reference desk. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 19, 2005, January 19, 2006, January 19, 2007, January 19, 2008, January 19, 2009, and January 19, 2011. |
Going commando was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 6 February 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Underwear. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Engvar
So the WP:LAME to stir up a non-issue."Was started in EngvarB" is not quite to the point. The IP address that began this as a stub in 2002 appears to be in the UK now but there's no evidence of that editor's spelling preference, and anyway, that's not what the guideline says to look for. It says "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." The first revision that might meet that is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Undergarment&oldid=712081 which has "popularized" not "popularised". If you consider that a stub then the next major expansion is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Undergarment&oldid=780010 which still uses "color" not "colour". By that point American spelling is pretty well established. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
]
Boxer briefs are AKA...
"Was started in EngvarB" is not quite to the point. The IP address that began this as a stub in 2002 appears to be in the UK now but there's no evidence of that editor's spelling preference, and anyway, that's not what the guideline says to look for. It says "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." The first revision that might meet that is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Undergarment&oldid=712081 which has "popularized" not "popularised". If you consider that a stub then the next major expansion is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Undergarment&oldid=780010 which still uses "color" not "colour". By that point American spelling is pretty well established. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Boxer briefs are AKA...
A *lot* of people colloquially refer to boxer briefs currently as just “briefs” - which isn’t grammatically untrue, as sometimes people call bikini briefs simply “briefs”, as well. They are both types of briefs of course. Also, some refer to boxer briefs as “boxers” although that seems less common, and once again may still he linguistically correct. Should this be reflected in the alternate names section for Boxer Briefs?
- Citation? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I know of no documentation of it, otherwise I would have posted about it.
- In that case, the answer to your question is that it should be in the alternate names for boxer briefs, provided we have a citation for it. Since we don't, then no, not at this time.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Bra table
There wasn't an image for a bra in the table, so I added File:Buestenhalter-2.jpg to the table. Was this a good choice? It does represent a fairly common example of a bra shape, and it adequately shows the breast coverage, I would like to say. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 13 January 2023
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support, sure. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support Blu Moon (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support per above. --Srapa (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Union suits…
is everyone ok with me to make a separate entry in the Types section? ChecksMix (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)