Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:00, 22 December 2008

Fashion Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Breeching (boys) appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 September 2007. A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2007/September.

Superb! --Ghirla 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Stumbling across this article has completely revitalised my enthusiasm for the project this week. Thankyou :-) Shimgray | talk | 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of actual content... we discuss the meaning of the term "coat" (for "dress") a couple of times. Might it be worth noting the survival of a vestigal use of this term, in "petticoat" etc? Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Coat, which I should link to, is a complicated word, like frock, which has a very odd history given its main meaning now. Johnbod 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

See Clothing terminology as well, which was the article that got me into editing wikipedia big-time in the first place. Probably due for a refresh... - PKM 19:20, 23 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)

Yes, I'll have to think of something. Johnbod 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

20th century usage

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)

Well the sources say 1920 (Museum of Childhood link etc), but really this is for toddlers & up. I hope you didn't remain in dresses too long! The pre-"shortcoating" dresses stage for babies did continue for sometime, which I should add. I think I have some incriminating photos myself. Really we need a broader article on the whole topic of children's clothes, which I don't think we have. Long Christening robes are the long-coats (not I think actually called that) all babies wore all the time until they were shortcoated, up to ?the C19. Johnbod 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not once I was reliably toilet trained! --APRCooper 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Beginning..?

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)

It's a bit vague about that because the sources we have at the moment are. In most of the Middle Ages (see the various period articles) any leggings or trousers were essentially worn under a long gownish garment which was the top layer. Young boys just didn't wear the leggings, or not up to a joined pants section at the top - I suppose. They may have had open back seams as Chinese babies/toddlers still I think do. But I don't have sources on this, and wonder how much is actually known. Until the mid to late C15th dress-type gowns were plausible wear for adult males, even if mostly worn, say, by older men, or poorer ones, so you can't distinguish boys really. The pictures (& those on commons) cover the styles more fully than the article is able to, and show that boys dresses tracked many of the very complicated changes in style in womens dresses over the period, at a certain distance. Johnbod 13:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found a peer-reviewed article that suggests that the practice arose (in England at least) in the 1540s, which seems about right. I'll add "mid-sixteenth century" with the citation. - PKM 16:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - there are also some pretty small boys to be seen wearing the baggy shorts C16 things (I forget the name) which presumably could be got down quicker in an emergency than later breeches - or were held up by a belt and more forgiving of growth. Scholarship does not seem to have fully covered this important aspect of matters yet! Johnbod 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cross-dressing

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)

I appreciate that. But even if the boys were not cross-dressing at the time, by today's norms they would be and that is very interesting from a history-of-cross-dressing point of view. It does not diminish the importance of other categories if this article is also in the cross-dressing category. I will, however, not re-add the category until this matter is resolved. Other editors are encouraged to give input. --Bensin (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with that, but have you included the modern vestige christening gown in the category? Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not. As that article did not so obviously belong in the category Category:Cross-dressing as I thougt this article did. --Bensin (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting conversation. I don't believe boys wearing dresses 200 years ago is any more cross-dressing than women wearing Levi's in the 1950s is cross-dressing. I would suggest that cross-dressing implies intentionally dressing in clothes that are understood to belong "properly" to the opposite sex. Boys did not wear girls' dresses, which for the most part were cut differently than boys' dresses (although not always) (even today some clothes for babies like a yellow baby bunting with a ducky on it are gender-neutral). - PKM (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Baptism gowns are gender neutral. --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

Breeching "pants" would be wholly unacceptable, as purely US English. Now you have done the work of disentangling the incoming links, there doesn't really seem to be a need for a disam page. Would you adjust all the links coming here too? For people searching for the tack, if they miss the direct link on the search page, there is no saving in keystokes, and for people wanting to come here, there is an extra stage. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pages with ambiguous titles accumulate links over time, so disambiguation has to be done periodically. Someone will have to do this again. Also, I looked only for links from articles I know concern horse tack; there likely remain links concerning other topics that still need disambiguation. Readers can enter the page via a search result or via a link. Regardless of what topic the reader wants, all links to that topic should be correct. Correcting all links is much easier when a disambiguation page occupies the ambiguous title. So, yes, if this article were moved, then all links to this title would need to be disambiguated. There is software to semi-automate the job. See Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "pants", would "garment" or "clothing" be acceptable? --Una Smith (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Breeching (boys) would seem the one to use - Breeching is an act not a type of clothing, but I still don't see the need. It is pretty clear all the links now should come here. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class fashion articles
• Low-importance fashion articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles