Talk:Breeching (boys)

Comment 1

Superb! --Ghirla^-трёп- 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 Wikipedia: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)

Done. --Una Smith (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of images

The number of images in this article (27) struck me as too great, per WP:MOS#IMAGES. I have limited the number in the gallery to 10, and made it so that no images in the body of the article are pushing past the boundaries of a section. I also added Wikimedia Commons links; the link to the "Boys' dresses" category contains a much more extensive gallery than the one that was here. This brings the number of images in the article down to 12, which seems more reasonable. - Riverstones (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Below is the list of images that were removed. If the 10 images in the article's gallery should be rearranged to include any of the following in this "overflow" gallery, that could be done.

What "struck you" was that there was no room for your enormous template! There is already a commons link. The subject is a highly visual one, and the well-captioned gallery perfectly in line with ones in comparable fashion articles, and policy. You just removed the pictures in the text that got in the way of your template, and cut off the gallery after the first two rows. This is very close to vandalism, and I have reverted you. Breeching was a universal experience for Western males for several centuries, only a miniscule proportion of whom went on to take any interest in cross-dressing. To have the article dominated by a template on the subject is plain WP:UNDUE. Down-the-side templates are increasingly being replaced by bottom of the page ones, especially if they are long, and on visual subjects where images are needed. I suggest you convert this one, which is much too large for the great majority of articles using it. Obviously anything to do with gendered clothing is significant to cross-dressing, but this does not hold the other way round. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• 
  German boy aged three, 1769
• 
  Thomas Gainsborough, The Blue Boy, c. 1770, reviving the style of Van Dyck's period as semi-fancy dress
• 
  Goya, 1784. A skeleton suit or similar outfit.
• 
  Rembrandt Peale, 1812. American boy wearing special boy's suit.
• 
  English watercolour, 1836. Boy in short dress with visible pantalettes as underwear.
• 
  Corot, 1843–4. When there was doubt, painters tended to use aggressively masculine props to confirm gender, like this whip.
• 
  English breeching portrait, with knickerbocker suit, c. 1867.
• 
  English boy, 1871. Without his name on the back the sex would be hard to determine.
• 
  Sailor-style dress on boy, late 19th century. Evidently sufficiently common that the photography studio has a mast prop ready.
• 
  American boy, 1902
• 
  Boston, 1755-1760, boy and (?) girl
• 
  Louis XIV and his unbreeched brother. In French royal portraits sex can be harder to tell, except by the absence of jewellery. 1640s
• 
  English boys, 1670
• 
  Boy in a light frock, with "masculine" hat (on ground) and drum
• 
  English-inspired pantaloon suit. Germany, late 18th century

Clarify "V"

Under the "Unbreeched boys" section there is this sentence: They frequently wear belts, and in periods when female dresses had a V at the waist, this is often seen on little girls, but not on boys.

It should be clarified what is meant by the female dresses having a "V". Perhaps a description, photo, or link.

Tuxd00d (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breeching (boys). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018051254/http://moifa.org/eventsedu/education/dressingup/introduction.html to http://www.moifa.org/eventsedu/education/dressingup/introduction.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Reasons

"The change was probably made.." Probably? The link for the citation goes to a generic page with no actual citation for this claim. I do agree that it may very well be the case due to the complexity of dressing of the times as zippers were not invented yet, but this needs a better citation, please. Even though many educational facilities do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source, the citations provided in these pages can be exceptional in helping those seeking their education. Thank you. 2601:145:500:5EE:CBF:EAB4:BE1B:5737 (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

By all means find one & add it. Johnbod (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There is none. It needs a re-write as "probably" is not confirmation. I do not edit pages as I do not wish to accidentally damage what others have written. 71.200.34.210 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Celebrations

Something of the custom of getting gifts survived into the 1960s. In Sheffield (at least) when a boy wore his first pair of long trousers to church many of the older men would slip a coin into his pockets with the comment that "when a boy first has long trousers he should have something to go in them". No citations I'm afraid, just personal experience. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

School Uniforms in England mandate shorts?

"In England and some other countries, many school uniforms still mandate shorts for boys until about nine or ten."

Which? Where?

Where I have lived in England, it is usually the other way around, i.e. schools mandate long trousers and won't let boys wear shorts (except games' kit, but that's not what is usually meant by school uniform).

Having said, England is quite culturally varied, so it is perfectly possible it is still usual in some areas of the North, for example.

However, if it is correct a citation would be appropriate, particularly with regard to the "many".

FloweringOctopus (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree, the sentence needs rewriting and a citation found, but also a citation to show the reverse if applicable. It's quite noticeable over my lifetime how uniforms have changed, I was in shorts up to the age of 12 (winter included), then at 13 uniform changed and longs were mandatory. However, when my boys went to school 40 years later (I was a late Dad) then it was joggers or longs for all of their school life. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll shift it down to "some" and "eight". Posh prep schools are where to look. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's also very common in hot Commonwealth countries - India, South Africa etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a little warmer in India or South Africa than in the Black Country, particularly in the winter of 1962–1963! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)