Talk:Pantyhose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nylons

I live in Manitoba, and we have always called them nylons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.112.135 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Replacing Wholesale Deletion

Last year user 79.69.62.50 deleted, without explanation or challenge, a substantial and fairly well documented section of this article. I'm replacing it here. Yeah, it still needs editing. And a bit of it duplicates information in the health risks section. I'll work on the editing. --TheEditrix2 16:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually this was discussed here before being done. Furthermore, the article is watched, and when these changes were made, no one chose to revert it. Saying it "needs editing" is an understatement. I believe you have good intentions, but most of it has no place here. I looked only briefly, but the fact that there are citations is misleading, since the citations themselves are inappropriate. Unless something has changed since this was last agreed upon, it should be reverted. Juventas (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul attempt

In the spirit of the Wikipedia directive be bold!, I've decided to enact a long overdue (imho) overhaul of this page. I'll be the first to admit in no way do I think my revisions are perfect or the final word, in fact I think lots more needs to be done. I attempted to follow wiki guidelines where possible; striving for clarity, organization, conciseness, and (hopefully) neutral point of view and verifiable claims only.

What did I get rid of? I got rid of redundant (repetitive) information, information that seemed unimportant to the focus of the article, opinions, and whatever sources that either didn't exist anymore, didn't have the information it claimed to have, or was not from a verifiable/reliable source.

I'm still not happy with certain aspects. I'm not sure if the intro paragraphs are the best they can be. The history section can be improved. There is a reference to Ann Margaret and to the "Chaser's War on Everything" that I'm not sure are apropos to the article. There's other stuff too. Hopefully more positive changes will follow. swidly (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Swidly. It wasn't that long ago that there was no history whatsoever, which I hastily created (my first WP contribution, no citations), and was later added to by others. Your mention of a "critical eye" made me look into it again, and I realize my sources were somewhat flimsy. I have uncovered a wealth of information and will be re-writing it soon. Juventas (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That's great news; I don't consider myself an expert on the sub-sections such as "history" or "composition"; things like that. I just got really motivated after reading through the wikipedia guidelines on how to write good articles and all the policies and realized how much improvement the article could use (and probably still needs); before that I really had no idea. And I was really hoping others would get involved too, so this is really great. swidly (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's done, and so very short! The information I've gathered is about one-hundred-fold from before, so if you figure anything needs more detail, just say so! Quite interesting history it turns out... Juventas (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I love the changes, by the way. swidly (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger of pantyhose and tights

These are the same.

My intentions for this request were 80% pure. 24.126.199.129 11:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pantyhose Wearers

Is it just me or is the list of "Famous Pantyhose Wearers" just a wee bit long and pointless? Frankly, it reads like a nylon-fetishist's list of hot finds - not that many women are "famous for wearing" nylons. I'll hold off editing it down for a few days of discussion if need be, but I see this list being no more than a few people long (Namath, Bach, Hart, DeWitt, maybe a few more). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article on pantyhose, not a checklist for hosiery connoiseurs.Matt Deres 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

--This section is a useful addition to the wearing of pantyhose in modern culture. It would be a pity to cut it.

~ Certainly the section on famous fictional pantyhose wearers seems a bit fetishistic and of limited interest to someone of less specialized interest in the subject. ~

I agree the wearers list seems out of place. It reads like a partial star list who happen to wear pantyhose like millions of other people. Not very notable. Same with the fictional list.

history, stockings, and tights

pantyhose? Same goes for the men wearing as well. There isn't much mention about the 80s as when it seemed every movie that had a woman or girl in it had on pantyhose which at that time pantyhose sales reached their peak in sales. Pantyhose are mainly worn by women who need a more polished look to a skirtsuit or a formal dress attire such as weddings, parties and in some cases where a job may require it. Pantyhose are also worn in the healthcare industry where nurses are on their feet and legs all day as well as other jobs that require either lengthy sitting or standing. However those pantyhose are more of a shapewear style and have more spandex to them to give compression and support to tired achy legs and to help with swelling. Much of this paragraph goes for men as well as though I cannot think of a job that requires men to wear pantyhose. There are jobs that do require a long time sitting like truck driving, flying and other cases where men have to even stand like surgeons, nurses and salespeople. I will be the first to admit I wear them, but it's not a fetish, it's necessity as I'm in management and on the floor all day usually for 8 to 14 hours without sitting as I usually end up standing up to eat. To be honest it caught me off guard when I was at the doctor's office and the nurse mentioned why not try a pair as at that time I was having leg trouble. My decision to try a pair was basically based on the recommendation when the doctor came in as she overheard the conversation and said the same thing, she stated that most men rather take the prescription she was going to give me, I opted for the hose as I really didn't like taking medication; besides the pantyhose are cheaper, though I have told no one. As for me, it's still a taboo thing but hey they do help.

• This is very interesting material, but why do you think that pantyhose and tights are different things? Kissmequick

• • I can see the merit of keeping them separate. Besides the fact that the 2 are physically different, by the American definition; tights have a different role in society than pantyhose. For example, in some situations it is acceptable for males to wear tights, such as in ballet or cycling, or in special situations like a Renaissance Fair. In some Eastern cultures, it is not unheard of for infant boys to wear tights. In all these cases, the same could not be said of pantyhose. In addition, in America at least, young girls customarily wear tights and only move on to pantyhose when they reach a certain age, kind of like an unspoken "rite of passage". So I say keep them distinct, but maybe try to merge common info into hosiery. swidly 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Swidly. I suppose it's a judgment call, but I thinks it's good to have a separate article. The generality that pantyhose are nearly exclusively for women (medical creativity aside) whereas tights can be unisex. Pantyhose were also a part of a significant change in women's fashion (part of the death knell for the girdle) during the 1960's. Mattnad 01:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

American Tights are NOT British Tights

Pantyhose were an American invention. Per his wife's request, Allen Gant literally sewed a pair of panties to a pair of stockings. It was meant from the beginning to be Panties + Hose. The quest to manufacture the product in one piece began from there. The first commercially available pair were called Panti-legs, available in 1959.

To American women, tights and pantyhose are distinct and separate garments.

It is a matter of history.

Originally, tights in America had/were:

1. The same thickness from waist to toe 2. Without a gusset 3. Worn my artsy women, dancers, and children. Too "out there" for mainstream women. 4. Not appropriate as mainstream large scale fashion for mature women until the late 1960's, if then 5. Much thicker than pantyhose 6. Overwhelmingly opaque, very rarely sheer, and then only slightly so 7. Did not become appropriate as mainstream large scale fashion for ALL women until the early 1990's 8. Knee-hi (trouser socks) and control-top versions of tights did not become available until the early 1990's 9. Usually considered more casual than pantyhose. Witness the simultaneous rise of the casual workplace and tights as mainstream fashion: both occured in the 1990's

What women in the United States call tights, the British call "Woolies" or Wooly-tights.

A small but very dedicated group of women who wear tights in the United States will tell you that they LOVE tights, but HATE pantyhose. To these women, tights are more comfortable and last longer. If one of these women asked you for a pair of tights for a gift, and you gave her pantyhose, she would be VERY unhappy, and tell you in great detail WHY tights are so much better than pantyhose. They often call them "my tights" rather than just "tights", which speaks to their pride and affection for the garment. For Americans, tights are not sheer. Pantyhose are. So if the garment is one piece hosiery that is thick, of uniform weight, and opaque, Americans will say these are tights. If the garment is one piece hosiery that is sheer and thin, Americans will say these are pantyhose.

Traditionally, pantyhose in America:

1. Have different thicknesses on the legs vs the panty portion. The panty portion was literally meant as a substitute for a woman's panties. 2. Contain a gusset, most often made of cotton to wick away moisture for the comfort of the wearer 3. Wearable by all women and mainstream fashion appropriate, not just an artsy subset, from the outset. 4. Much thinner than tights. Even the panty portion of the pantyhose is often thinner than tights. 5. Became dominant over 2 piece stockings in 1970. 6. More likely to be called "stockings" than pantyhose. When an American woman needs pantyhose, she will often say that she needs "stockings". 7. Knee-hi and control-top versions available in the early 1970's, early in the garment's history. 8. Usually considered dressier and classier than tights. Even a women who wears tights most of time will often break down and wear pantyhose when elegence is required.

Very few Americans call pantyhose "tights". Stockings is a far more popular word to describe pantyhose, despite being technically incorrect. Nylons would most often refer to Pantyhose as well, and while less popular than the term "stockings", it is still far more popular than "tights".

British sheer tights have a MUCH thinner panty portion than their American pantyhose counterparts. This seems to be almost an afterthought, following the convention of a thicker panty portion, rather than an actual functional "panty" portion. Even the Austrian hosiery makers Wolford, who use the term "tights" exclusively, cannot avoid describing their control-top tights as having a "panty" control portion. This is a legacy of American pantyhose.

This is also true for any other manufacturer outside the USA GMLSX (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of merging "Pantyhose" and "Tights", I beleive that we need a British definition for "tights" and a separate American definition for "tights". In the UK, a "torch" is a flashlight. Ask an American for a "torch" and you will get a quizical look. Ask a British person for a flashlight and you will get the same quizical look.

Should we combine the "Bangers" article with the "Sausage" article? Should we combine the "Underground" article with the "Subway" article? Should we combine the "Shopping Trolley" article with the "Shopping Cart" article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.28.201.5 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Just because the British don't distinguish between tights and pantyhose, doesn't mean the sections should be combined. As I recall, the British lost the war with the states and we earned the right to our own distinctive version of English. Please keep these sections separate.

For legal references regarding pantyhose and tights not being equivalent, see "Great Moments in Pantyhose Jurisprudence" by Richard Grayson, http://www.yankeepotroast.org/archives/2004/04/great_moments_i.html

Cleanup

Pantyhose Styles This section needs cleanup. Sheer should be defined and the whole tone needs rewriting. Sorry I couldnt figure out how to write it as I am not knowledgable in the least on this subject. I fixed grammatical errors but could not correct encyclopedic content mishaps; my edit was before I logged in so it was by an IP address Hope it was constructive!! I want to help make WP a better place. BroodGimp 10:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone's reading this; I seriously agree. The article has some good sections but other parts have a weird tone to it and I'd say lacks a NPOV (tending towards the negative). An example is the whole section of "Starting sometime in the 90s, pantyhose went almost completely out of fashion", with no citations in particular. And the whole "Advantages/Disadvantages" of Pantyhose sections always struck me as non-encyclopedic. I could see maybe a section of "Health Benefits" and "Health Risks" perhaps (several of those health risk entries can also probably be grouped together). And the entries under "Disadvantages" of pantyhose being "unflattering", "flimsy" seem more like opinions (and no citations of course - how could there be?). And not wearing for ethical/economic reasons while possibly true, have no citations behind those either and besides could be applied to many other types of clothing but for some reason pantyhose seems to be singled out. Perhaps if there were a statistic/opinion survey by a reliable source of why women don't wear pantyhose, it could be included in the article, if it is even appropriate. And the whole entry about "Since 1995 pantyhose sales have declined by about 70 percent" is not a disadvantage at all and the citation provided doesn't exist and isn't from a credible source anyway (others may be the same). In short, this article needs a lot of reworking. swidly (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

EDIT unless anyone objects, I will start making changes within the coming days/weeks. Anything with a flimsy source will get an especially critical eye. swidly (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Props

Props to the anonymous user that beat me to correcting the "partyhose" (see revisions). Matthew Glennon (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversions of anonymous contributions

The past month an anonymous user (from 74.243.45.205 and 70.155.212.35) has been attempting a contribution in regards to fashion shows from this decade. They have been reverted by either Antique Rose, XLinkBot (a bot that reverts based on a list of problem domains), or Juventas (myself). I had multiple issues with the early edits. They lacked credibility (a blog), importance (a single fashion show), and formatting (the reference url was posted as text, grammar, no internal links). Nonetheless I researched it further, and edited the existing paragraph to better reflect pantyhose in this decade. The anonymous edit on Sept 13 was better, but was reverted by the bot, because of the use of blogs as references (please read WP:BLOGS). I believe the anonymous user is trying to make an honest contribution, but I'd suggest using non-blog sources (the last edit contained 4 blogs), and integrating it with the existing paragraph. Juventas (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Would this photo belong here?

The article on high-heeled footwear formerly included the photo File:Sample Pantyhose.jpg. Since the focus of this photo was clearly not on the shoes (!), I replaced it with a cropped derivative file (File:White High Heels.jpg). The original photo isn't used anywhere in the English Wikipedia now, but perhaps someone might consider it appropriate for inclusion here in the pantyhose article, so I thought I'd just put a note here to let people know it exists. Richwales (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately File:White High Heels.jpg doesn't clearly show what type of hosiery it is. Imho, the current File:Pantyhose2.jpg is an excellent leading image. The subject is clear, it's tasteful, there is no other clothing to distract, and background does not distract. Juventas (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Pantyhosefashion1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pantyhosefashion1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Pantyhosefashion1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pantyhose/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Touches all the bases, but all sections could use more and there probably could be more photos. Daniel Case 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)