Talk:Pants

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Trousers
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Trousers

Popular Culture Secion

"In the animated sitcom Family Guy, the main character, Peter, wears pants."i actually disagree with you peter wears jeans faggot What? What the hell? Is this relevant at all or should it be marked as vandalism and removed with extreme prejudice?

I think it should be removed. It's obviously silly. ɱўɭĩє ^{What did I do}_wrong 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened?

About a month ago, the "Pants" entry was simply a redirect to "Trousers". Then I turned it into a disambiguation page. Now it's a different disambiguation page, and the page history now tells me that it was changed from a redirect on 28 Jul 2002, and that my version never existed.

OK, so the current version is more comprehensive than mine was. But does anyone know what happened? Did one of the admin staff just annul the recent edits, or what?

In British English, Pants is an "abbreviation of" underpants, not "refers to" underpants....discuss

Guinness2702 2005-07-21T01:15 BST

It isn't an abbreviation. A short form, maybe, but not an abbreviation. Moreover, if that's the case then where did "underpants" come from? -- Smjg 10:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that historically "pantaloons" (and possibly "pants") would have been used in British English, which would be where the American English version originated. At some point it must have fallen out of use in Britain, in favour of "trousers" but not before "underpants" came into use. Subsequently, that was shortened (whether abbreviated, contracted or shortened) to just "pants". Guinness2702 2005-07-22T11:25 BST

Trousers or trews (a Scots word) have been around a very long time indeed, sometimes called breeches (breeks), but in any event obviously before the character of Pantaleone existed, or else how could he wear them?

Nuttyskin

British pants

Im a brit and i dont call my pants trousers? I call them pants!

formal pants are trousers, pants are pants and underwear is just underwear!

Would I be right in saying you are from the North West sir/madam?!

I have already ammended this page accordngly, speaking as someone from Yorkshire who moved to the North-West to find this usage common there (I have since asked around alot, in England, the usage of "pants" for "trousers" does seem to be confined to Manchester/Merseyside/Lancashire........)BG 29/10/5

I agree, quite a few people in britain do call trousers pants. I didnt realise it was just the North West though.

from another perspective in london we call them trousers and pants alot of the time refers to the type of underwear that is similar to trunks/speedos

I've lived in south Manchester my entire life and I've never come across pants meaning trousers. I'm not denying that it's used, but at least in south Manchest it isn't. Liam Markham 11:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember watching a Bob Mills interview show and he had Noel and Liam Gallaghers brother on Paul. During the course of the interview Paul mentioned getting new pants for a wedding, to which the crowd started laughing. Paul looked puzzeld and Bob replyed "I know what you mean". The reason why I remembered this useless bit of info is because it was the first time I ever realised the word pants was also used as underwear. I've lived in Preston all my life and pants to me always been synonimous with trousers.

Added a couple lines

Added a couple sentances of info. Got it from Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com got it from: The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

anti-pants movement

Would it be suitable to mention the anti pants movement, and specifically No_Pants_Day?

It is unsatisfactory that the revolution is not mentioned here.

The worst sentence in human history

I vote for the second sentence of this article, which states that "the term is an abbreviation of pantaloons, a puzzling plurale tantum as it comes from the French pantalon, stemming via the buffoonish commedia dell'arte-character Pantalone from that Italian word'". A greater mixture of pretentiousness, stiltedness, snobbery and general awfulness I have yet to see. I would change it, but I think it is brilliant as it stands. Airport 1975 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A photo would be nice

(At least of what Americans call "pants" I'm not sure we really want to see photos of what the Brits call pants.) Jon 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to disagree on the latter point, if i'm understanding correctly.--The Sporadic Update 06:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pants/Pant controversy

Have you noticed how the fashionistas are trying to foist the word "pant" as the singular for pants on us? Has a greater travesty occurred this week than this? Pants has always been the proper word until some marketing "genius" has tried to confuse the issue.

Shouldn't we include a section on this horrible series of events?

Wiktionary?!?!

Can somebody explain to me why on earth pants has its own wikipedia article?! I know of no other encyclopaedia in the world that would even consider putting pants in it. (Mawkish1983 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Cause pants is a word and it has a definition maybe? 87.113.17.121 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pants Game

How the hell can an activity that takes place on forums across the internet be too 'local' to be notable? Atraxus 12:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance?

Is it really necessary to have an article about pants on Wikipedia? I think (and hope) that everyone knows what pants are. People probably come to this website for mere entertainment. That is about all that this article is good for.... Oh and the only "pants game" has citations. There are no citations for the entymology of the word, or some of the more less known facts.

Everybody experiences pants so I believe it is relevant. Although a little more background would be good Atraxus 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Nomination

I nominated this article for deletion. Please go here to discuss: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pants --Candent shlimazel 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was speedily closed with one user suggesting a disambiguation. I personally support that idea; this doesn't need to be an article. Could go to Trousers, Underpants, Pantsing, Pant, etc. cab 05:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the American Trivia?

The Other Uses in American English sub-section contains nothing but trivia. I think it only exists to emulate the British Other Uses sub-section. I suggest that we remove the American trivia, or at leave put it in a Trivia section. The alternate British uses are widespread and quite distinct from the main meaning, so I think they deserve to stay. AlexTingle 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pantaloons

If there's going to be a section about pants, why does the word pantaloons redirect here, even though pantaloons aren't even mentioned? You know, those long, baggy, lacy knee-length womens undergarments that, these days, are only worn by historical re-enactors and those Christian domestic discipline guys? 217.42.23.217 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]