From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fashion (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protect lifted[edit]

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)

It seems fine. I'm taking this off my watchlist. If there are any problems, please let me know. SilkTork *YES! 15:49, 27 August 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)

Law section[edit]

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. (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Women's Trouser's section[edit]

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 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


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 (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 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Jesuits that ran my high school in Fairbanks in the mid-1950s forbade girls' wearing of pants at school. However, in a concession to the climate, they could wear pants to school but had to change immediately upon arrival.

Pictures of Trousers period-wise[edit]

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, (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Retraction of Louisiana Bill[edit]

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)

Biased Article[edit]

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)

Trousers means the same thing everywhere, whereas pants means different things in different places. It only makes sense to use the universal term as the article title. If anything, the fact that "pants" redirects here instead of to underpants is evidence of pro-North American bias. Don't get me wrong, I think it makes sense for pants to redirect here (if only because I am North American) but I don't see how there's any pro-British bias. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. Trousers is primarily a British expression; as the article states, most of the English-speaking world uses "pants." Similarly, the use of "pants" to mean "underpants" is entirely British (see the OED). To say that "trousers" is the universal term and "pants" the aberration is, in my opinion, very misleading and biased toward British usage rather than general English usage. As I noted above, this might not be so egregious if there were a separate article on "pants" rather than the re-direct. Ssterns (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that trousers is used equally everywhere, but it is certainly used occasionally in North America and it means the same thing. I am suggesting that the average American or Canadian would understand the same thing from the word "trousers" as someone from Britain, even if they wouldn't necessarily choose to use that word themselves. So I agree it's not universal in popularity of usage, but it is universal in meaning. Pants is neither universal in its usage nor universal in its meaning. Splitting an article on one thing into two because of national varieties of English makes no sense. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
MightyQuill, you seem to be missing the point in an effort to preserve the UK bias in the article, whether you "see" it or not. Clearly I'm not the only one to recognize such bias in this article and it's a frequently raised point with Wikipedia overall. The fact that "pants" seems to be used by the majority of English speakers is ignored in favor of defaulting to British language preferences. That's clearly bias. And it's unfortunate since a properly written article could easily avoid the bias, even to the point of creating separate short articles focused on the peculiarities of usage. If that makes no sense, though commonly done here, it just reinforces to me your support of UK bias. It's just one more reason why Wikipedia will continue to be discounted as a reliable source by serious scholars. Cheers! Ssterns (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (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 (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood MightyQuill a little. The fact that a given word for a concept or object is 'most widely used', 'most popular' or 'generally accepted' is not a major consideration for Wikipedia to use that word as the main concept definition. (Declaring the most popular usage as correct is a variegation on the appeal to popularity fallacy). The aim of using the word 'trousers' in this context is so that it is recognisable (even if not the word most would choose) to the greatest number of users. As MightyQuill has already pointed out, using 'pants' would be misleading to some users (mainly in Europe and the United Kingdom) who construe this as meaning 'underpants', whereas 'trousers' (though it might be seldom spoken among United States users) is nevertheless recognised in the US as referring to the concept. This is not about bias, UK-based or US-based. It is about providing the greatest amount of comprehensibility to the greatest number of users. Hope that helps. Malusmoriendumest (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood me a little. I've never said that "trousers" was incorrect as a main concept definition or that "pants" was "more" correct simply because it is more widely used (more "popular"). I've said that because "trousers" is the main heading and "pants" redirects to it, this is an indication of bias. Your arguments might make more sense in the context of a print encyclopedia, where space considerations, even in multi-volume sets, make such condensing more necessary. There is no such constraint here, and Wikipedia articles routinely cross-reference between sections of an article and another "main" article on the same subject as the section. Therefore, to remove bias and restore balance, it would be more proper to have two articles: one for "trousers," focusing on the term's primary use in British English and one for "pants," focusing on it's use in the rest of the English-speaking world, with liberal cross-referencing. The point is not which term is "better," the point is that subordinating one to the other to accommodate the sensibilities of British-English speakers is primary evidence of editorial bias. Ssterns (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, why do you give a damn whether the article is called "trousers" or "pants"? I searched "pants" and was redirected here; I found the same information I would have if the article was called "leg coverings" or "lower-body garments". The redirect ensures that speakers of either British or American English will find the information they're looking for, so let's not have a sectionalist battle. Neil Clancy 18:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, editorial bias in an encyclopedia undermines its credibility, especially when there is no reason for the bias as outlined above. Such editorial bias is one reason why Wikipedia is unlikely to be recognized as an academically authoritative resource. Without standards, there is no reason to trust the information. Ssterns (talk) 18:02, 10 June 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 (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. -- (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, so I have a question for our British cousins here: are jeans, sweatpants etc. considered to be "trousers" in the UK or what? Here in the US, "pants" is a generic term for longer leg covering garments, including things like I mentioned above and even lady's capris, pedalpuishers etc., which do not reach the ankle but are longer than shorts. This is perhaps why there has been objections to "trousers" being the title here, to us on the left side, it is sort of like having the term "sweater" redirect to "cardingan" rather than the other way around. Wschart (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Keepy crying, you little insecure Yank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2016 (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.

Thanks for your comments, anonymous editor. Please feel free to reword awkward phrasing. I'm sorry you feel there is a UK bias. I don't personally see it, but I'm certainly willing to discuss it. I stated just above this section why I think it makes sense to use "trousers" instead of "pants" for the article title, but as for the article text, it seems to be a mix of British and American English. "-ize" is used over "-ise" but "colour" instead of "color". - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It might help the anonymous editor to consider that different spellings of English words can be seen as alternatives, not as conflicting and divisive differences. It is also a little puzzling to class British spellings as fundamentally and irrevocably 'incorrect', when many (though by no means all) are in fact the original ones, having been created and put into usage long before their new, more widely used, alternatives. Linguistic change does happen, and it is true that many words have new, more popular versions; nevertheless, the original words remain valid. - Malusmoriendumest (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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-- (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Romo46000, 18 February 2011[edit]

{{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 (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it called "Trousers"[edit]

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

Nope. Pants are what you wear underneath your trousers. -- (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the more common name should be the main heading. Additionally, the etymology for each word that I found in Random House Dictionary puts the origin of "pants" at around 1400 CE and the origin of "trousers" right at the beginning of the 17th Century. So in addition to being more common, it appears 'pants' is much older. So, is it even possible to change the main heading? -- (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
"Pants" appears to be the more common name, but "trousers" is less ambiguous (because "pants" apparently refers to underpants in some places).
Additionally, while "pants" is the usual term in the United States (where I reside), "trousers" is not unheard-of here. This likely is the case in other countries where "pants" predominates.
So on a worldwide level, "trousers" probably is the most understandable, least confusing title for the article. —David Levy 14:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
'Trousers' is the common term worldwide, and has the same meaning in every English speaking country. Whereas 'pants' might be a synonym in the US and Canada, but most everywhere else it refers to what North Americans would call 'underpants'. To get some idea of how 'pants' sounds to other Anglophones, watch a an American film and replace every instance of 'pants' with 'panties'. It's almost hard to keep a straight face. Trilobright (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
"Trousers" isn't used much at all in North America, where a majority of the world's native anglophones live, so I question the claim that it's the "common term worldwide". I can buy the argument that it's less ambiguous, though. 2602:306:CFEA:170:C103:A781:E657:AB45 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pair of ...[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 11:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Some good[edit]

Mixed usage[edit]

"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)

Edit request on 23 June 2015[edit]

A protected redirect, Trouser, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Trousers]] {{R to plural}}
  • to this:
#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)

Yes check.svg Done --Redrose64 (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Redrose64! – Paine  14:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Painful (2)[edit]

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)