Talk:Underpants

Please do not redirect

I know that all the information in this article is also in undergarment. However this article is needed because in many languages there is only one article for briefs and boxer shorts, and if this article does not exist the interwikis become really confusing. 190.196.76.131 (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below, please. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting

Since this page has been around since 2003 without being a redirect, I find it necessary to have a discussion about it. The IP that's been contributing anonymously believes it's needed for transwiki purposes, and I believe that it at least deserves to have a chance at staying an article, despite it needing some rescue. I say improve and keep it, and if that's not possible then redirect it. d m z 12:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit summary, that's not the case. In 2003 it started as a redirect. In 2010 it started being a standalone article.

I am well aware that the IP said that the page was necessary for transwiki purposes. However on EN we typically do not start redundant articles just to make transwikiing easier. If the anonymous user is able to show that "underpants" has a distinct meaning that requires that it needs a distinct article from "undergarments," maybe it could be kept.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously it does have a different meaning, but that's not the issue. I say redirect again. We should not create articles just for iw purposes. Generally the iw should go to briefs, which are more typical globally. Johnbod (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't redirect apple to fruit. We don't redirect Red Delicious to apple. Turesable (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1925

The oldest item on this page is boxer shorts which apparently came about in 1925. Why doesn't this article discuss the history of underpants before 1925, or if that was truly the beginning of underpants, shouldn't it say something about that? 82.35.199.68 (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By accident or by design, it so happens that the word “underpants” itself appeared only after boxer shorts were created: https://www.etymonline.com/word/underpants#etymonline_v_4486 This wiki article does link to the Undergarment one, where all of that is explained, however I wonder if at least a list of most common synonyms for underpants, past and present, would be appropriate for this article BlackAdvisor (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer shorts known as "trunks"?

Are they really known As trunks?That is news to me. BlackAdvisor (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Briefs

Shouldn’t men’s bikini briefs have a section? BlackAdvisor (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could we get a pic of (the front of) men’s bikini underpants licensed/approved/whatever for this page...? BlackAdvisor (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diapers

Should the diaper section stay or not? Under Briefs “absorbent varieties” are mentioned, and possibly is implicitly meaning diapers, since moisture wicking fabrics and the like are available on all or most underpant types BlackAdvisor (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Underpants” vs. “Underwear”

Is it worth mentioning in this article that many people refer to their underpants as “underwear” (euphemistically, perhaps?)? Although many times this isn’t incorrect, obviously underpants are a type of underwear, but there are some situations, for instance, referring to “a pair of underwear”, that are irregular…. plus, it’s worth noting that the colloquialism is pretty common in the anglophone sphere, regardless of country or dialect. BlackAdvisor (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‘Long john’ bottoms..?

This garment probably should be added, right? Blu Moon (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Calzoncillo" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Calzoncillo and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 13#Calzoncillo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BarleyButt (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

did you also notice its plural, as well as the French for it in the Redirect section? Blu Moon (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Boxers.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened to pants?

Are you sure this is correct? I.e. Is "pants" really short for "underpants", or is "underpants" long for "pants"? I had always imagined the latter. Which is the original term for the undergarment?

Wiktionary gives the etymology as "From under- +‎ pants", which implies that "pants" is the original term, but I can see the possibility that "pants" didn't have this meaning at the time. The Cambridge Dictionary listings state "UK also pants" under underpants and "also underpants" under pants, so we can't draw any conclusions from this. — Smjg (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

too male-centric?

Some of the types in the section of the same name are indeed unisex, but it’d make more sense to expand the article to be more gender-neutral overall. ChecksMix (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]