This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trousers 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 |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
![]() | 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 |
I have lifted the semi-protect to allow normal editing to occur. I will keep an eye on the article, and if it attracts higher than average vandalism, I will again semi-protect it. SilkTork * YES! 09:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Pantaloon is a disambiguation page that links here with a description of pantaloons as a type of trouser. This page contains several mentions of the word but no details on how they might be different, special, or the same. Could someone who knows what pantaloons are edit this page to make this more clear? — mako ๛ 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The law section is ridiculous. It should be condensed into either one or zero sentences. Some of the text might be appropriate on articles about decency laws. John ( talk) 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The scope of the law section doesn't match the scope of the rest of the article. 63.73.199.69 ( talk) 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The section on women's pants/trousers needs to be edited for accuracy. Last I checked, the 25th century won't occur for another 400 years and there have only been 2 World Wars. --Nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.200.212 ( talk) 00:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of this section is virtually the same as the Law section, and such duplication should be avoided as much as possible. Note there is also the link to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers_as_women%27s_clothing here, which seems to also have all the relevant information and more. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) 05:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thin Smek ( talk • contribs)
Removed " (the Italian language word for "Trousers")" from the reference to Pantalone, clearly it's the Italian word for Trousers for the same reason it is in English, the reference to the character, and not because it means "Trousers". The Wikipedia page on the character "Pantalone" has multiple proposed etymological sources for the name of the character. dk4 ( talk) 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is extremely euro-centric. It jumps directly from Antique Age to 15th century Hungary with no mention of long history of trousers in vast geography of Asia. And there is also no reference to hundreds of different types of torusers worn by different cultures throughout history, whether it be sharovary or hakama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.184.207 ( talk) 01:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The article also lacks mention of North American pants which predate NA-European contact. Arctic people in particular couldn't survive with out them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.249.208 ( talk) 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel that it would be better if pictures of trousers are added period-wise in this article. I do not know about western countries, but I know some types of trousers since my birth (and before it) in oriental countries. For example, the loose fitting trousers in 50's, the tapering narrow-pants in the 60's, the flaring bell-bottoms in the 70's. 80's were a vacuum for trousers. People were wearing just another version of narrow-pants, a little increased in circumference. 90's saw ballon type baggies (maximum circumference at the knee reducing towards waist and ankle). The fashion just repeated in 2000s. People were wearing Parallels in late 90's which resembled the ones in 50's. Boot-cuts (resembling the bell-bottoms) were in till Skinny Jeans was introduced by Lee in 2006-2007 (which again resembled narrows in the 60's). Jeans which was being considered as old-fashioned, became fashionable in late 90's. I was searching for the measurements of the loose fitting trousers in 50's. I thought wiki would have them, but could not find any. That's why thought of posting my view here. Thanks, Veera.sj ( talk) 05:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The article clearly states that Derrick Shepherd "proposed" the bill described, so it is patently obvious that he is also the only one who could retract the proposition made. It wasn't a bill that was passed, but a proposed bill. If someone else had specifically challenged it or demanded its retraction, that would be written differently. The [by whom?] is completely unnecessary and wrongly applied in any case considering the sentence is coherent as it stands. Marcvanderloo ( talk) 06:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
By titling this article "Trousers"and redirecting "Pants" here, there is an implicit and unwarranted assumption that the standard usage among all English speakers is "trousers" even though the article states that "trousers" is primarily used only in the United Kingdom. This indicates bias in the article. It wouldn't be as egregious if there were a separate "Pants" article to parallel this one instead of redirecting here. It will be interesting to see if Wikipedia is actually self-correcting. Ssterns ( talk) 18:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, most of the english speaking world call them pants, and referring to them constantly as trousers is just ridiculous when only one country does so. This whole article should be retitled "Pants." Whoever's defending "trousers" is a schmuck trying to feel self important and should just shut the hell up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.174.250 ( talk) 04:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is even a matter of national bias. In Manchester and Liverpool (and probably most of the North West of England) pants is used interchangeably to mean either trousers or underpants. The slang British use of 'pants' is simply an abbreviation of 'underpants' which are so called because they are worn under pants (trousers). I have never in my life seen items of underwear in a UK shop labelled as 'pants', but I have seen long legwear labelled as such - usually very casual e.g. lounge pants, not the type you iron a crease in, although I know some people who use it in this sense as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.189.168 ( talk) 11:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Trousers certainly does not mean the same thing everywhere. As stated in the article itself, 'trousers' is mostly used in North America to refer to "tailored garments with a waistband and (typically) belt-loops and a fly-front". A North American would not call a pair of sweatpants 'trousers' but would consider them a type of 'pants'. I fail to see how this distinction is any different from the specificity of 'pants' in British usage or why that case gets priority above all others. -- 68.37.161.91 ( talk) 07:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Keepy crying, you little insecure Yank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.247.144 ( talk) 13:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Only Southern England uses the word pants to describe underwear exclusively. Everywhere else that speaks English (including norther england) calls trousers pants, underwear is underpants (generally male) or knickers (generally female) or underwear. So trousers are pants and pants are trousers (except to Southeners). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:CA0F:7B00:145E:3CC1:35C5:1B65 ( talk) 17:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The use of the word trousers in North America is uncommon at best. Use of the word seems misplaced and no one specifically knows what trousers actually refer to. There should be a new article entitled pants because the two are not used interchangeably in the least. The example of sweatpants or jeans was a good one. If anything, trousers might refer to a particular type of English pant? But pants, in general, is far more wide-ranging, and does not overlap with underwear except with the silly sounding "underpants". 2601:182:4381:E60:F47D:7166:408E:8014 ( talk) 19:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree 100% that this is a biased article being that the most commonly employed word is "pants." Furthermore, the word "trousers" is inappropriate because many North American English speakers (the majority of native speakers of English) would not understand the word trousers. It's fine that the word trousers is mentioned, all English varieties should be respected, but to facilitate communication it would be better to employ the word "pants" as the primary word and "trousers" as a secondary word. ˜˜˜˜Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.189.136 ( talk) 16:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@2601:182:4381:E60:F47D:7166:408E:8014 With all due respect, the word underpants may sound silly to you but it originally is a hynponym of underwear BlackAdvisor ( talk) 18:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
To most native and non-native speakers the term is "pants". That should be the title of the article, period. There seems to be the assumption among some British people that all non-British people at least understand the word "trousers" and understand it to mean what it means in Britain; this is false. 142.126.235.142 ( talk) 01:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This is one poorly written article - almost every sentence is a string of jerky exceptions and inclusions of alternate terms and awkward descriptions. It truly is painful trying to follow what, if anything, the author is or authors are trying to say. One serious overiding problem, as with many Wiki articles, is indeed the profound UK bias - maybe Wiki should just call it a day and let the UK faction just take over and make no attempt to try to serve the majority of English speakers on the planet. The only thing that is really disturbing is the number of kids coming online and picking up these incorrect spellings and grammar.
Bias or no, redirecting the far more common and older usage of "pants" to an article titled trousers is ridiculous. Its misinformation. Check this please and include the Assyrian use כי ברוך הוא, Robert Chazan,William W. Hallo. p.378-- 80.184.25.29 ( talk) 07:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please add to the Fly section of this article the fact that in British English they're called flies, always in plural. I have seen a lot of people on the Internet correcting others because they say "your flies are undone". This is totally correct in British English: flies is always plural for them.
Romo46000 ( talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Qwyrxian (
talk)
12:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
How do you suppose you get a source on that? Do most pluralizations usages on wikipedia have citations? Google search results should be proof enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.137.215 ( talk) 03:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is this article called "Trousers" when it mentions several exceptions (That is to say, more exceptions than non-exceptions) that call it pants? If the most commonly used word is "Pants", then the article should be called "Pants". It seems like the United Kingdom's usage of "Trousers" is the exception, rather than "Pants".
Corbenine ( talk) 00:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Corbenine
It's not so common now, but when I was younger, both "trousers" and "pants" were normally prefaced by "pair of"; and they still are at least occasionally.
I gather this originates from "a trouser" being a legging, and the wearer needing one for each leg. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the etymology section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Kealey ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I think so, too. If these pictures, or others like them, are suitable, more should be added to the article. I felt there was a lack of illustration when reading the history section. Particularly I had to do a web image search for pantaloons to understand the description; two files were deleted in October as mooted here in Talk; and the reference to the Thorsberg peat bog illustration is invalid as that image has also been removed within the last three months. "Loose-fitting trousers were worn in Byzantium under long tunics,[20] and were worn by many tribes, such as the Germanic tribes that migrated to the Western Roman Empire in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, as evidenced by both artistic sources and such relics as the 4th-century costumes recovered from the Thorsberg peat bog (see illustration).[21]" Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) 05:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
"In other English speaking countries, the word "pants" generally ..." I do not think this is true. Take for example New Zealand where usage is mixed (try a Google search on [pants site:nz]) as it is with "chips" and "crisps", and if the Kiwi's usage is mixed it is probably also mixed in land of the Vegemite sandwich and in Canada, so US usage is far from as isolated as the sentence implies). -- PBS ( talk)
I've always lived in the South Island of New Zealand, and people sometimes seem to prefer one or the other and are caught by surprise when the alternate is used. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) 04:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thin Smek ( talk • contribs)
Tagging User:PBS. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) ( talk) 17:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Trouser has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A protected redirect, Trouser , needs redirect category ( rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Trousers]] {{R to plural}}
#REDIRECT [[Trousers]] {{Redr|to plural|move|unprintworthy}}
Template Redr is an alias for the {{ This is a redirect}} template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. No protection rcat is needed, and if {{ pp-protected}} and/or {{ pp-move}} suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed when and if protection is lifted.) Thank you in advance! – Paine 13:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. In the UK of Great Britain, they might even say this article was so poor, it was 'pants.' JF42 ( talk) 07:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Take that full-stop out of the speech marks. Uncivilised twat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:301:5242:F1F2:1E53:A5D5:9EA4 ( talk) 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't care about legal problem I could risk by admitting it, but this paragraph seems to be an attack against female habits, regardless of every national view. Male traits aren't necessarily valid for women. -- ElpJo84 ( talk) 13:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
In the sentence
Republican Rome viewed the draped clothing of Greek and Minoan ( Cretan) culture as an emblem of civilisation and disdained trousers as the mark of barbarians.
found in the "Antiquity" section, I added an internal link to " Himation" for the text "draped clothing". However, in retrospect this may not be correct since the it's possible that "draped clothing" refers to a Chiton (costume). Could someone who is more knowledgeable than I about this subject please verify which of these (if not both) "draped clothing" refers to? selfworm Talk) 15:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
trousers were known to the people in indus valley civilization here is the paper which analyses artifact analysed by indus civilization expert Massimo Vidale, date of the artifact is pre harrapan 2800-2600 BC
In this male figurines, the hat was painted red. The body parts, as observed in the females, were painted yellow, with secondary elements applied in black, perhaps to suggest more ornaments or details of the dress. Yellow and black were also the colours casually fixed on similar and later figurines (Fig. 6) by a ruinous firing at Nausharo (Samzun, 1992; see Tokio Metropolitan Museum, 2000: 42-43; 82-88). In these standing specimens, scattered and broken on the floor of one or more private dwellings of Period ID, yellow was applied to the bodies, brown was applied to represent a kind of trousers, and black marked the eyes, hair and other body details (Kenoyer, 1998: 186-187).
a mother goddess figurine in national museum in new dehli is also said to be wearing tight fitted trousers with a tunic.
trousers are also depicted in ancient india as early as 200 BC in a ujjain coin, this dress is declared as achkan
Mesopotamian/ ancient egypt trousers
Gebel el-Arak Knife with Master of Animals motif at the top of the handle 115.135.130.182 ( talk) 15:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
None of those depict trousers. Akmal94 ( talk) 01:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The American Term for This Particular Garment "Pants" is used by the U.S., a country with approximately 325 million people living in it and in addition to this Canada has been known to use this term for a grand total of approximately 360 million rather than the U.K. a country with approximately 60 million live there which is why I suggest it be used as the article title and that trousers be redirected to this instead of vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.115.186 ( talk) 19:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The article says breeches have sometimes been worn instead of trousers, and I have no reason to doubt that. However, the article's own definition of the word "trousers" seems general enough that breeches would have to be included under it. If breeches are not trousers, then the definition of trousers should be specific enough that an uninitiated reader will understand why. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trousers 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 |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
![]() | 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 |
I have lifted the semi-protect to allow normal editing to occur. I will keep an eye on the article, and if it attracts higher than average vandalism, I will again semi-protect it. SilkTork * YES! 09:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Pantaloon is a disambiguation page that links here with a description of pantaloons as a type of trouser. This page contains several mentions of the word but no details on how they might be different, special, or the same. Could someone who knows what pantaloons are edit this page to make this more clear? — mako ๛ 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The law section is ridiculous. It should be condensed into either one or zero sentences. Some of the text might be appropriate on articles about decency laws. John ( talk) 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The scope of the law section doesn't match the scope of the rest of the article. 63.73.199.69 ( talk) 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The section on women's pants/trousers needs to be edited for accuracy. Last I checked, the 25th century won't occur for another 400 years and there have only been 2 World Wars. --Nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.200.212 ( talk) 00:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of this section is virtually the same as the Law section, and such duplication should be avoided as much as possible. Note there is also the link to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers_as_women%27s_clothing here, which seems to also have all the relevant information and more. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) 05:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thin Smek ( talk • contribs)
Removed " (the Italian language word for "Trousers")" from the reference to Pantalone, clearly it's the Italian word for Trousers for the same reason it is in English, the reference to the character, and not because it means "Trousers". The Wikipedia page on the character "Pantalone" has multiple proposed etymological sources for the name of the character. dk4 ( talk) 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is extremely euro-centric. It jumps directly from Antique Age to 15th century Hungary with no mention of long history of trousers in vast geography of Asia. And there is also no reference to hundreds of different types of torusers worn by different cultures throughout history, whether it be sharovary or hakama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.184.207 ( talk) 01:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The article also lacks mention of North American pants which predate NA-European contact. Arctic people in particular couldn't survive with out them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.249.208 ( talk) 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel that it would be better if pictures of trousers are added period-wise in this article. I do not know about western countries, but I know some types of trousers since my birth (and before it) in oriental countries. For example, the loose fitting trousers in 50's, the tapering narrow-pants in the 60's, the flaring bell-bottoms in the 70's. 80's were a vacuum for trousers. People were wearing just another version of narrow-pants, a little increased in circumference. 90's saw ballon type baggies (maximum circumference at the knee reducing towards waist and ankle). The fashion just repeated in 2000s. People were wearing Parallels in late 90's which resembled the ones in 50's. Boot-cuts (resembling the bell-bottoms) were in till Skinny Jeans was introduced by Lee in 2006-2007 (which again resembled narrows in the 60's). Jeans which was being considered as old-fashioned, became fashionable in late 90's. I was searching for the measurements of the loose fitting trousers in 50's. I thought wiki would have them, but could not find any. That's why thought of posting my view here. Thanks, Veera.sj ( talk) 05:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The article clearly states that Derrick Shepherd "proposed" the bill described, so it is patently obvious that he is also the only one who could retract the proposition made. It wasn't a bill that was passed, but a proposed bill. If someone else had specifically challenged it or demanded its retraction, that would be written differently. The [by whom?] is completely unnecessary and wrongly applied in any case considering the sentence is coherent as it stands. Marcvanderloo ( talk) 06:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
By titling this article "Trousers"and redirecting "Pants" here, there is an implicit and unwarranted assumption that the standard usage among all English speakers is "trousers" even though the article states that "trousers" is primarily used only in the United Kingdom. This indicates bias in the article. It wouldn't be as egregious if there were a separate "Pants" article to parallel this one instead of redirecting here. It will be interesting to see if Wikipedia is actually self-correcting. Ssterns ( talk) 18:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, most of the english speaking world call them pants, and referring to them constantly as trousers is just ridiculous when only one country does so. This whole article should be retitled "Pants." Whoever's defending "trousers" is a schmuck trying to feel self important and should just shut the hell up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.174.250 ( talk) 04:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is even a matter of national bias. In Manchester and Liverpool (and probably most of the North West of England) pants is used interchangeably to mean either trousers or underpants. The slang British use of 'pants' is simply an abbreviation of 'underpants' which are so called because they are worn under pants (trousers). I have never in my life seen items of underwear in a UK shop labelled as 'pants', but I have seen long legwear labelled as such - usually very casual e.g. lounge pants, not the type you iron a crease in, although I know some people who use it in this sense as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.189.168 ( talk) 11:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Trousers certainly does not mean the same thing everywhere. As stated in the article itself, 'trousers' is mostly used in North America to refer to "tailored garments with a waistband and (typically) belt-loops and a fly-front". A North American would not call a pair of sweatpants 'trousers' but would consider them a type of 'pants'. I fail to see how this distinction is any different from the specificity of 'pants' in British usage or why that case gets priority above all others. -- 68.37.161.91 ( talk) 07:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Keepy crying, you little insecure Yank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.247.144 ( talk) 13:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Only Southern England uses the word pants to describe underwear exclusively. Everywhere else that speaks English (including norther england) calls trousers pants, underwear is underpants (generally male) or knickers (generally female) or underwear. So trousers are pants and pants are trousers (except to Southeners). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:CA0F:7B00:145E:3CC1:35C5:1B65 ( talk) 17:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The use of the word trousers in North America is uncommon at best. Use of the word seems misplaced and no one specifically knows what trousers actually refer to. There should be a new article entitled pants because the two are not used interchangeably in the least. The example of sweatpants or jeans was a good one. If anything, trousers might refer to a particular type of English pant? But pants, in general, is far more wide-ranging, and does not overlap with underwear except with the silly sounding "underpants". 2601:182:4381:E60:F47D:7166:408E:8014 ( talk) 19:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree 100% that this is a biased article being that the most commonly employed word is "pants." Furthermore, the word "trousers" is inappropriate because many North American English speakers (the majority of native speakers of English) would not understand the word trousers. It's fine that the word trousers is mentioned, all English varieties should be respected, but to facilitate communication it would be better to employ the word "pants" as the primary word and "trousers" as a secondary word. ˜˜˜˜Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.189.136 ( talk) 16:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@2601:182:4381:E60:F47D:7166:408E:8014 With all due respect, the word underpants may sound silly to you but it originally is a hynponym of underwear BlackAdvisor ( talk) 18:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
To most native and non-native speakers the term is "pants". That should be the title of the article, period. There seems to be the assumption among some British people that all non-British people at least understand the word "trousers" and understand it to mean what it means in Britain; this is false. 142.126.235.142 ( talk) 01:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This is one poorly written article - almost every sentence is a string of jerky exceptions and inclusions of alternate terms and awkward descriptions. It truly is painful trying to follow what, if anything, the author is or authors are trying to say. One serious overiding problem, as with many Wiki articles, is indeed the profound UK bias - maybe Wiki should just call it a day and let the UK faction just take over and make no attempt to try to serve the majority of English speakers on the planet. The only thing that is really disturbing is the number of kids coming online and picking up these incorrect spellings and grammar.
Bias or no, redirecting the far more common and older usage of "pants" to an article titled trousers is ridiculous. Its misinformation. Check this please and include the Assyrian use כי ברוך הוא, Robert Chazan,William W. Hallo. p.378-- 80.184.25.29 ( talk) 07:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please add to the Fly section of this article the fact that in British English they're called flies, always in plural. I have seen a lot of people on the Internet correcting others because they say "your flies are undone". This is totally correct in British English: flies is always plural for them.
Romo46000 ( talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Qwyrxian (
talk)
12:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
How do you suppose you get a source on that? Do most pluralizations usages on wikipedia have citations? Google search results should be proof enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.137.215 ( talk) 03:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is this article called "Trousers" when it mentions several exceptions (That is to say, more exceptions than non-exceptions) that call it pants? If the most commonly used word is "Pants", then the article should be called "Pants". It seems like the United Kingdom's usage of "Trousers" is the exception, rather than "Pants".
Corbenine ( talk) 00:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Corbenine
It's not so common now, but when I was younger, both "trousers" and "pants" were normally prefaced by "pair of"; and they still are at least occasionally.
I gather this originates from "a trouser" being a legging, and the wearer needing one for each leg. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the etymology section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Kealey ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I think so, too. If these pictures, or others like them, are suitable, more should be added to the article. I felt there was a lack of illustration when reading the history section. Particularly I had to do a web image search for pantaloons to understand the description; two files were deleted in October as mooted here in Talk; and the reference to the Thorsberg peat bog illustration is invalid as that image has also been removed within the last three months. "Loose-fitting trousers were worn in Byzantium under long tunics,[20] and were worn by many tribes, such as the Germanic tribes that migrated to the Western Roman Empire in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, as evidenced by both artistic sources and such relics as the 4th-century costumes recovered from the Thorsberg peat bog (see illustration).[21]" Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) 05:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
"In other English speaking countries, the word "pants" generally ..." I do not think this is true. Take for example New Zealand where usage is mixed (try a Google search on [pants site:nz]) as it is with "chips" and "crisps", and if the Kiwi's usage is mixed it is probably also mixed in land of the Vegemite sandwich and in Canada, so US usage is far from as isolated as the sentence implies). -- PBS ( talk)
I've always lived in the South Island of New Zealand, and people sometimes seem to prefer one or the other and are caught by surprise when the alternate is used. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) 04:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thin Smek ( talk • contribs)
Tagging User:PBS. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) ( talk) 17:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Trouser has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A protected redirect, Trouser , needs redirect category ( rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Trousers]] {{R to plural}}
#REDIRECT [[Trousers]] {{Redr|to plural|move|unprintworthy}}
Template Redr is an alias for the {{ This is a redirect}} template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. No protection rcat is needed, and if {{ pp-protected}} and/or {{ pp-move}} suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed when and if protection is lifted.) Thank you in advance! – Paine 13:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. In the UK of Great Britain, they might even say this article was so poor, it was 'pants.' JF42 ( talk) 07:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Take that full-stop out of the speech marks. Uncivilised twat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:301:5242:F1F2:1E53:A5D5:9EA4 ( talk) 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't care about legal problem I could risk by admitting it, but this paragraph seems to be an attack against female habits, regardless of every national view. Male traits aren't necessarily valid for women. -- ElpJo84 ( talk) 13:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
In the sentence
Republican Rome viewed the draped clothing of Greek and Minoan ( Cretan) culture as an emblem of civilisation and disdained trousers as the mark of barbarians.
found in the "Antiquity" section, I added an internal link to " Himation" for the text "draped clothing". However, in retrospect this may not be correct since the it's possible that "draped clothing" refers to a Chiton (costume). Could someone who is more knowledgeable than I about this subject please verify which of these (if not both) "draped clothing" refers to? selfworm Talk) 15:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
trousers were known to the people in indus valley civilization here is the paper which analyses artifact analysed by indus civilization expert Massimo Vidale, date of the artifact is pre harrapan 2800-2600 BC
In this male figurines, the hat was painted red. The body parts, as observed in the females, were painted yellow, with secondary elements applied in black, perhaps to suggest more ornaments or details of the dress. Yellow and black were also the colours casually fixed on similar and later figurines (Fig. 6) by a ruinous firing at Nausharo (Samzun, 1992; see Tokio Metropolitan Museum, 2000: 42-43; 82-88). In these standing specimens, scattered and broken on the floor of one or more private dwellings of Period ID, yellow was applied to the bodies, brown was applied to represent a kind of trousers, and black marked the eyes, hair and other body details (Kenoyer, 1998: 186-187).
a mother goddess figurine in national museum in new dehli is also said to be wearing tight fitted trousers with a tunic.
trousers are also depicted in ancient india as early as 200 BC in a ujjain coin, this dress is declared as achkan
Mesopotamian/ ancient egypt trousers
Gebel el-Arak Knife with Master of Animals motif at the top of the handle 115.135.130.182 ( talk) 15:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
None of those depict trousers. Akmal94 ( talk) 01:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The American Term for This Particular Garment "Pants" is used by the U.S., a country with approximately 325 million people living in it and in addition to this Canada has been known to use this term for a grand total of approximately 360 million rather than the U.K. a country with approximately 60 million live there which is why I suggest it be used as the article title and that trousers be redirected to this instead of vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.115.186 ( talk) 19:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The article says breeches have sometimes been worn instead of trousers, and I have no reason to doubt that. However, the article's own definition of the word "trousers" seems general enough that breeches would have to be included under it. If breeches are not trousers, then the definition of trousers should be specific enough that an uninitiated reader will understand why. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)