A fact from Breeching (boys) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 September 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Superb! -- Ghirla -трёп- 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the term 'retractable' sword meant to convey that the hilt was affixed permanently to the scabbard? If so, might a more felicitous term be found? I hate to suggest an edit to such an otherwise well-done article, but the mental image of a retractable sword offers up a gigantic spring-blade (switch-blade) knife to me! {grin} Cordially, -- Drieux 20:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you that the wearing of "dresses" by very young boys did not die out after the First World War; I have a photograph of myself taken on Coronation Day in 1953, when I was just over a year old, and I am clearly wearing a dress. I am male! Furthermore, Christening Robes (though rarely used these days) are in the form of a dress for children of either sex.
In fact, I do not think the use of dresses for baby boys died out until stretch-suits (e.g. Baby-Gro) became widely available. While kids still need nappies (diapers for American readers), a dress is a very practical answer to problems of access for changing!-- APRCooper 19:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
A very interesting article. Congrats on getting onto DYK. Though, I am curious as to when this practice began. The article says "until the 19th or 20th century..." So, are we meant to believe that this practice goes back forever? Did it begin in the 10th century? the 12th? the 15th? And how different were the clothes (the fashion, the style) involved over the course of the centuries? Thanks. LordAmeth 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the category "cross-dressing" from this article. This isn't about boys wearing girls' clothes; at one time dresses like those shown here were boys' clothes. - PKM ( talk) 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Breeching to Breeching (pants), to make way for a disambiguation page.
I just fixed a handful of links to this article that intended Breeching (tack). It was a chore to find them among all the links intending little boy's pants. In the process, I worked up a disambiguation page, User:Una Smith/Breeching. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The number of images in this article (27) struck me as too great, per WP:MOS#IMAGES. I have limited the number in the gallery to 10, and made it so that no images in the body of the article are pushing past the boundaries of a section. I also added Wikimedia Commons links; the link to the "Boys' dresses" category contains a much more extensive gallery than the one that was here. This brings the number of images in the article down to 12, which seems more reasonable. - Riverstones ( talk) 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Below is the list of images that were removed. If the 10 images in the article's gallery should be rearranged to include any of the following in this "overflow" gallery, that could be done.
Under the "Unbreeched boys" section there is this sentence: They frequently wear belts, and in periods when female dresses had a V at the waist, this is often seen on little girls, but not on boys.
It should be clarified what is meant by the female dresses having a "V". Perhaps a description, photo, or link.
Tuxd00d ( talk) 10:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Breeching (boys). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
"The change was probably made.." Probably? The link for the citation goes to a generic page with no actual citation for this claim. I do agree that it may very well be the case due to the complexity of dressing of the times as zippers were not invented yet, but this needs a better citation, please. Even though many educational facilities do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source, the citations provided in these pages can be exceptional in helping those seeking their education. Thank you. 2601:145:500:5EE:CBF:EAB4:BE1B:5737 ( talk) 06:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Something of the custom of getting gifts survived into the 1960s. In Sheffield (at least) when a boy wore his first pair of long trousers to church many of the older men would slip a coin into his pockets with the comment that "when a boy first has long trousers he should have something to go in them". No citations I'm afraid, just personal experience. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 11:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
"In England and some other countries, many school uniforms still mandate shorts for boys until about nine or ten."
Which? Where?
Where I have lived in England, it is usually the other way around, i.e. schools mandate long trousers and won't let boys wear shorts (except games' kit, but that's not what is usually meant by school uniform).
Having said, England is quite culturally varied, so it is perfectly possible it is still usual in some areas of the North, for example.
However, if it is correct a citation would be appropriate, particularly with regard to the "many".
FloweringOctopus ( talk) 12:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
A fact from Breeching (boys) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 September 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Superb! -- Ghirla -трёп- 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the term 'retractable' sword meant to convey that the hilt was affixed permanently to the scabbard? If so, might a more felicitous term be found? I hate to suggest an edit to such an otherwise well-done article, but the mental image of a retractable sword offers up a gigantic spring-blade (switch-blade) knife to me! {grin} Cordially, -- Drieux 20:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you that the wearing of "dresses" by very young boys did not die out after the First World War; I have a photograph of myself taken on Coronation Day in 1953, when I was just over a year old, and I am clearly wearing a dress. I am male! Furthermore, Christening Robes (though rarely used these days) are in the form of a dress for children of either sex.
In fact, I do not think the use of dresses for baby boys died out until stretch-suits (e.g. Baby-Gro) became widely available. While kids still need nappies (diapers for American readers), a dress is a very practical answer to problems of access for changing!-- APRCooper 19:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
A very interesting article. Congrats on getting onto DYK. Though, I am curious as to when this practice began. The article says "until the 19th or 20th century..." So, are we meant to believe that this practice goes back forever? Did it begin in the 10th century? the 12th? the 15th? And how different were the clothes (the fashion, the style) involved over the course of the centuries? Thanks. LordAmeth 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the category "cross-dressing" from this article. This isn't about boys wearing girls' clothes; at one time dresses like those shown here were boys' clothes. - PKM ( talk) 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Breeching to Breeching (pants), to make way for a disambiguation page.
I just fixed a handful of links to this article that intended Breeching (tack). It was a chore to find them among all the links intending little boy's pants. In the process, I worked up a disambiguation page, User:Una Smith/Breeching. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The number of images in this article (27) struck me as too great, per WP:MOS#IMAGES. I have limited the number in the gallery to 10, and made it so that no images in the body of the article are pushing past the boundaries of a section. I also added Wikimedia Commons links; the link to the "Boys' dresses" category contains a much more extensive gallery than the one that was here. This brings the number of images in the article down to 12, which seems more reasonable. - Riverstones ( talk) 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Below is the list of images that were removed. If the 10 images in the article's gallery should be rearranged to include any of the following in this "overflow" gallery, that could be done.
Under the "Unbreeched boys" section there is this sentence: They frequently wear belts, and in periods when female dresses had a V at the waist, this is often seen on little girls, but not on boys.
It should be clarified what is meant by the female dresses having a "V". Perhaps a description, photo, or link.
Tuxd00d ( talk) 10:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Breeching (boys). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
"The change was probably made.." Probably? The link for the citation goes to a generic page with no actual citation for this claim. I do agree that it may very well be the case due to the complexity of dressing of the times as zippers were not invented yet, but this needs a better citation, please. Even though many educational facilities do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source, the citations provided in these pages can be exceptional in helping those seeking their education. Thank you. 2601:145:500:5EE:CBF:EAB4:BE1B:5737 ( talk) 06:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Something of the custom of getting gifts survived into the 1960s. In Sheffield (at least) when a boy wore his first pair of long trousers to church many of the older men would slip a coin into his pockets with the comment that "when a boy first has long trousers he should have something to go in them". No citations I'm afraid, just personal experience. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 11:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
"In England and some other countries, many school uniforms still mandate shorts for boys until about nine or ten."
Which? Where?
Where I have lived in England, it is usually the other way around, i.e. schools mandate long trousers and won't let boys wear shorts (except games' kit, but that's not what is usually meant by school uniform).
Having said, England is quite culturally varied, so it is perfectly possible it is still usual in some areas of the North, for example.
However, if it is correct a citation would be appropriate, particularly with regard to the "many".
FloweringOctopus ( talk) 12:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)