User talk:Shorts/archive1

Track shorts: ADIDAS 1980 Olympics

This section should be expanded.

Bermuda shorts

The article states that they were invented by a vietnam veteran, but the term "bermuda shorts" was used in the movie "Witness for the Prosecution" made back in 1957 (the one with charles laughton).

Pictures

There should be more variety with the pictures. Men wear shorts, and there's long shorts and school uniform shorts as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.174.135 (talk • contribs)

I quite agree. Why not create a user name for yourself and upload some pictures? - Taxwoman 13:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too comfortable with the image and templating modules yet, but I'll offer some suggestions. I think John Stockton may be a good example of 70's and 80's men's "short shorts", and perhaps an example of the late 90's baggy shorts for men should also be included. Davemcarlson 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How about some upshots of guys in brief running shorts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.253.182 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 January 2006

Those could also work, instead of the John Stockton example I included above. It's up to you. Davemcarlson 03:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also there just pictures of women in Hotpants and i think thats sexist. Anyone agree?

Right now there is just one picture in the article, and it happens to be a picture of a woman in hotpants. This does not seem intrinsicly sexist, because this style is primarily worn by women, according to the article, and we do need an illustration of this style. However, we do need additional pictures (tastefully) illustrating the other styles listed. I had some trouble figuring out what some of the items on the list of styles were referring to, exactly. -- Beland 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that, Beland. Further, there are now 2 images of women in hot pants, one of which is a 'sexually provocative pose' (the woman in question is bending over). I find that offensive in the context of an encyplopedia entry. One image of hot pants should suffice, and the tasteless image should be removed. --210.1.207.118 (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Coach's Shorts

In the 80's I remember shorts with a wide stiff waist band. I think they were called coach's shorts.--Gbleem 12:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Capris/Capri pants

I think that Capris belong here as well, at least as much as shankles. I've seen many Capris that did not go much past the knees, though that may have been the wearer's choice rather than an actual fashion trend. On the respective page, they are considered a type of trousers, but I think they're more like long shorts, as they do not cover the whole leg. --Cromwellt|Talk 07:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that capris were not shorts any more than a jock strap would be considered shorts. In fact, the full name is "Capri pants" for a reason.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Shankles?

Could someone provide evidence (picture, link) or a better description of these? I've never heard of them, and frankly "shorts that go down to your ankles" sounds awfully like a description of pants.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.207.35.149 (talk • contribs).

Removed, a google search found nothing but copies of this page and people making comments about their ankles. Rahulchandra 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like Capri pants, too.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hot pants jokes?

I'm thinking someone was having a little fun with this page. Who is John Herbert and why is he credited for inventing hot pants? Also, who is Falck-Wrethagen? I've deleted this items. Feel free to revert if there is some source.Lagringa 04:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same way about the comments on how hot pants were commonly used in "telenovelas" and "upper level Spanish classes". What??? I edited this out on 4 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butron (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

JAMS

I see absolutely no mention of the short-lived phenomenon known as Jams. You know, the wacky colored knee-length shorts that swept the nation a decade and a half ago.

• Swept which nation? There are about 200 nations in the world. Wikipedia is a world encyclopaedia. Woblosch 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jogging shorts

In the late 1970s, when Jim Fixx popularized jogging, there was a brief fad for a particular style of red shorts with white trim; even today they still serve as visual shorthand for "trendy suburban jogger", much as Jane Fonda-style leg warmers connote a later fad for aerobics. It may be debatable which of the existing categories they fall under. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asat (talk • contribs).

Motivation / reasons why people wear shorts

The section on "reasons why people wear shorts" was removed (Reason: Point Of View)). It is important to understand why something is used as well as just knowing what it is. So this section has been restored. This gives a list of the all reasons that I can see for wearing shorts, not just my own, I encorage extra reasons to be added if you can think of any...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.59.84 (talk • contribs).

There are no reliable sources for this section, plus it does not show a NPOV and is unencyclopedic material - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fashion-advisor. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but an encyclopedia needs to document peoples motivations, please feel free to improve the unencyclopedic nature of the entry, not just remove it.

By its very nature it is a POV statement, but it should include all common POV's.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.59.84 (talk • contribs).

But it has no citations. Find me reliable sources and I'll help improve the section. Otherwise, as per Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:CITE polices, the section should be deleted. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This section gains credibility by all of the edits from reviewers. None of the entries has citations or sources listed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.59.84 (talk • contribs).

No, it doesn't, things have to adhere to policy. Just because a lot of people have edited it, by no means gives it credibility! Look, I'm tired of having countless arguments like this all across Wikipedia, just read and understand WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:SIG, then return to this debate. Until then, I'm removing the section: like I said, Wikipedia is not a fashion directory. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 17:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A few people have restored this section, only one is removing it, does that say something?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.59.84 (talk • contribs).

Not really; two have restored this section - you and User:Taxwoman. You don't appear to have a valid reason for restoring it and Taxwoman restored it based on the WP:IAR policy. The IAR (Ignore All Rules) policy states that if the rules prevent you from improving/maintaining Wikipedia - ignore them. Now, in my humble opinion, this information does not make Wikipedia better. Why do we need to know why people wear shorts? Even if you think people do, why does it need to be written like a fashion magazine? Lets' break it down:

• Simplicity - they are comfortable and easy to wear.

Not all shorts are, hotpants are quite uncomfortable! Nevertheless, this information is completely unencyclopedic.

• Practical - cool, light weight, allows for wide range of movement.

That's an opinion right there. See WP:NPOV.

• Fashion - some may have preference for such a style.

A valid point, but we still need citations. See WP:CITE.

• Uniform - mandated by the organisation the wearer belongs to.

A valid point, though a useless and mundane one. Still, we need cites.

• Copycat - others do it, so I want to.

I laughed when I read this. Completely useless information.

• Sexy - showing more skin can be sexier.

I laughed even harder at this.

So, as you can see, before we can even go any further than this, you're going to need citations. Read WP:CITE.

You're also going to have to re-write each of these in a more neutral manner. Read WP:NPOV.

You're also going to have to understand what an encyclopedia is and is not. Read WP:NOT.

You're also going to have to understand that you can't just add you're own opinions and conclusions to an encyclopedia. See WP:NOR.

The fact two users, including yourself, have reinstated the section proves nothing. I have deleted the section as it violates several policies - you don't seem to have read the policy pages (just to clarify, that's not a criticism - you seem to be a new user). ĤĶ51→^Łalk 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So what this comes down to is that HK51 cannot see the use of this material and therefore wishes to deny other readers the possibility of benefiting from it. The procedure is simple: we call for a poll of readers to see what they think. Incidentally, for some curious reason he took my reference to WP:DICK as a personal attack on him, which of course it was not.--Taxwoman 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The point I was making was to at least, though I don't think the section should be there personally, change the wording of the section for it to conform to policy. 211.31.59.84 has reworded it and I think it looks alright now, thought he/she should still read WP:NOR. Although I personally don't think the section is of any use to anyone, I personally find it mundane, trivial and obvious, if the majority of users here think it is of any use, I won't stand in its way — provided it conforms to policy. Btw, I recommend you find citations for the section.

Furthermore, I did not take your reference to WP:DICK as a personal attack, I personally think you've used it in a wrong way — I'm not arguing my point here just to disrupt Wikipedia and annoy you — I seen a section of an article which did not conform to policy and acted on it. I recommend you read the last line of the essay yourself. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 23:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Shorts becoming longs???

"For men, the fashion has been over the last 20 years for the length to get longer, effectively making shorts become long trousers again."

Where has this come from? It may be true that, for the first half of my childhood, shorts were appreciably shorter than they are now. But I can't see what sense it makes to claim that shorts are becoming long trousers again. To me, shorts are still shorts, longs are still longs and short longs are still short longs. -- Smjg 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons

I removed a Simpsons story from the hotpants section of Styles. It didn't seem to be needed. If anyone disagrees, feel free to add it back in, but at least shorten it a bit. --Joanna 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sociology

While I like the idea of this section, I've noticed it has a particular focus on men. I'd like to see some information touching on its place in women's fashion and the differences and possible double standards regarding its acceptance among the sexes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.161.115 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 24 March 2007

I wonder if the issues raised are not so different that there ought to be two separate articles, "Shorts for men" and "shorts for women".

It also may be a pity that this article has got classed as part of the Fashion project. That already of itself begs a lot of questions. Many uses of shorts for men and boys (esp. for sports, and as uniform, the latter more perhaps in UK than US) have very little to do with "fashion", but still merit discussion. Woblosch 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sociology and woldview

I have attempted to edit some of the text to add a bit more worldview to this subject. Unfortunately, while I know this is true, having lived in Africa for some time myself, I have no sources, making it OR. It may be that we should cut all this stuff out until we can verify all of it. --Lendorien 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Capris are shorts???

The ones I've seen are obviously more like long trousers than shorts. A quick look on Google Images confirms that many are not more than a few inches above the ankle. True, there's some variation in length, but to claim that capris in general are a kind of shorts seems nonsense. -- Smjg 11:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. It's yet another terminological debate, but I don't think most people would think of these currently fashionable 3/4 length things as shorts. Woblosch 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In the era (1950s), Capris were not considered shorts. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon

As always the humorless Wikipedia forgot to include the famous quote from Pokemon Fire Red/Leaf Green where a plucky youngster declares "I like shorts! They're comfy and easy to wear!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.53.16.84 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC).