Talk:Pantsing

This article was nominated for deletion on May 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

The article states that the video of the teacher having his pants pulled down in the classroom has been removed from YouTube is false! The video is prominent on the web site and on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.102 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verify!

Okay, this stuff has been here long enough... If you want it, verify it.

From Locus populations:

Debagging is suprisingly done much more by females than by males,^{[citation needed]} probably because females often wear more clothing with elastic waistbands such as shorts and skirts, which makes the victim easier to debag.^{[citation needed]}It can also be that females find it easier to get away with such beahviour as their actions are less likely to be considered agressive and mostly taken as good natured prank. Females often do this because of reasons such as revenge, embarrassment, or just to expose the other girl's colorful panties.^{[citation needed]} It is also done in the hope that the victim is wearing skimpy underwear, such as thongs.^{[citation needed]}

From Etymology:

Debagging has also been called "shanking" and "dacking."^{[citation needed]} Various regional English dialects have numerous other names.^{[citation needed]}

There are, in fact, additional names for "the act of pulling someone's pants down." Type words in a search engine to confirm that other terms are in usage. None of these words, nor the so-called,"standard" British English or American English words are going to be found in a dictionary or any formal scientific writing. This is because when the English language was created there was no such prank.

As far as the American English word, "pants," goes, the word underwent semantic shift because once the prank came into being, people had to call it something. That is why "pants" is in dictionaries as a noun and not as a verb. The word, as a verb, is informal. If that is not confusing enough, many Americans dispute the word and say that the proper word is "depants." I, personally, do not like this word because it sounds stupid to add a prefix to this interesting word!

The rest needs work. I don't have time to do it. Someone? EthanL (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual connotations?

Dunno if this is just my area, but pantsing is generally pulled off simply as a prank, and nobody thinks of it as pervy or gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.80.129 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agreed. This article seems rather intent on vilifying the practice as some sort of egregious sexual crime. Anecdotally, I always perceived pantsing to be mildly embarrassing, but generally acceptable, having both pantsed and been pantsed. Perhaps the tone of the article could portray pantsing as somewhat more benign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.203.196 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. The tone of this article making pantsing (the term I am more familiar with) being akin to what we call in America "a federal offense" -- a heinous crime. It's a prank. It's embarrassing and foolish -- as well as commonplace.58.137.139.10 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been toned down, but there's still a lot of it in the article. I think this "treat it as a deviant crime, and criminalize children" stuff should be put into a section specifically for that, and limited to at most a sentence or two in the lead, along the lines of "Some psychiatrists and gender studies academics suggest that ...", and leave it at that. It shouldn't all be removed; it's part of WP's job to "teach the controversy" not hide it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding me.

Why is this article titled Debagging? it absolutely needs to be called depantsing or something. Debagging makes no sense.--K1000 04:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --74.184.188.59 (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Debagging is British; from your timezones and comments, you are not? Jezza (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debagging is one of very many terms. Despite what the article says, none of them are "formal". However debagging seems to be the older and most popular name. I vote to keep it.124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing for Deletion

Yea, I don't really think that this page has any type of encyclopedic merit. Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_an_article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT
IloveMP2yea 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-05-30 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Debagging → Pantsing — It's the most common name for the subject, as debagging is only used in some English schools, while pantsing is used in most of the United States —— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Pantsing for just the reasons you gave. Herostratus 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pantsing may me more common by dint of its usage in the U.S., but the article was created by an experienced U.K.-based editor. We should leave this where it is as per WP:MOS#Disputes over style issues ("when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so"), WP:MOS#National varieties of English ("Follow the variety established by the first contributor"), and the RfA where the ruling was handed down, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.
Oppose, IAW WP:ENGVAR and WP:V or WP:RELY, see below. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 05:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The verb debag:

"Brit. informal; remove the trousers of (someone) as a joke or punishment." Compact Oxford
"British Slang. 1. to depants." Random House Dict at Dictionary.com
"verb, colloq to remove the trousers from someone as a prank or punishment." Chambers

The closest I can find to "pants" as a verb in any dictionary is the reference to "depants" at Dictionary.com: "Slang. to remove the trousers from, as a joke or punishment." I have looked for "pants" as a verb, "pantsing", and "depants(ing)" at OneLook dictionary search (which looks through 800 dictionaries, plus I checked Chambers, which for some reason OneLook doesn't cover. So three dictionary refs for "debag", one for "depants", and none for "pants". "Debag" is verified from three reliable sources, and British English is an acceptable variant for writing articles in. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 05:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong guideline, indeed. First, the definitions above suggest that the word exists in (some, but not all, variants) of British English, but not necessarily with the meaning used here. The word and/or suggestion "punishment" does not appear in the article. Second, Pantsing was deleted at AfD, and not merged into this article (contrary to the stated result). My proposal is to reverse that, and merge Debagging into the undeleted Pantsing. Hence the varient of English style guideline does not apply, but it is a choice as to which article to retain. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Pantsing goes back to 2005. There's no indication of a deletion. You can perform any sort of merge that's necessary using the page history. Dekimasu よ! 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This first more-or-list legitimate entry at Pantsing was in February 2006, while Debagging was started in January 2007. Hence the "first contributor" guideline above suggests Pantsing is the appropriate term, as the articles were supposed to have been merged. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boys who INVITE a pantsing!

Pantsing, or depantsing, as we called it in my old school, was considered a harmless tradition, which everyone – except the boy being pantsed – found amusing, and that included the teachers, and most especially, the girls in the adjoining school. In the article it is unclear if the boys’ underpants are removed or just his trousers. It was always both in my experience, and indeed in my town, there would be little discomfort proceeding purely from mere trouser removal. The rules were that only the boys who were in the First Grade could be pantsed, and then only if they were pre-pubescent. Typically, after some playful monkey business on the part of the newbie, he would be seized by a group of older “hearties”, have his trousers and pants removed, and quite often his shirt as well. Then, he would be carried to the middle of the school ground, usually near and sometimes right in the girls’ grounds, and left there to make his way as best he might.

As is common in many institutions, the youngest forms were the – usually benign – target of all sorts of pranks and japes, and so it was that the 12 year olds suffered this indignity. It’s a sort of rite of passage, and the victim’s humiliation was alleviated by his knowledge that he would be neither the first nor last to be pantsed in public, and that it would soon be HIS turn to do the same to the incoming forms that followed him. Other rules were that the boy could in no way be harmed or hurt, that the act had to be done in a good-natured, jocular fashion, and that only boys who were lively, healthy, and cheeky were fair game.

One very common and largely unacknowledged aspect of this practice was that many of the boy victims brought pantsing upon themselves by being impertinent to and over-familiar with the older pupils, even daring them to do it, and thus incurring the penalty. I am sure that they secretly enjoyed the idea of being stripped and exhibited in this way in front of their classmates and the giggling girls always close by. I know, because I brought on such a pantsing myself after ragging a group of older pupils. It was sports day and I was barefoot, dressed only in shorts, underpants and a tee shirt. All this was quickly stripped from me, and I was carried by the others – quite naked – to the girls’ grounds, where the mob, reckoning that my impertinence had been especially intolerable, elected to bind me, standing, to the chicken wire that fenced the perimeter of the girls’ basketball courts. I struggled with all my might against this outrage, but my motives were not so much to save what was left of my modesty, as to take my mind off what was becoming quite an impressive and uncontrollable erection. As it is, the boys relented, and just as well, for while the headmasters of both the boys’ and girls’ schools would overlook a simple pantsing, the provocative diorama of a naked boy seemingly crucified on a wire fence and with a deeply incongruous prong pointing to the horizon, might have led them to ban the practice altogether.

The Simpson’s, a cartoon that has touched on many themes never dealt with elsewhere, has an episode in which one of the characters – Martin – brings about his own unbreeching, as he frankly admits to himself. The incident reminded me vividly of the mild exhibitionism of my own schoolboy skylarking. A brief screenplay can be found here:

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F22.html

clear copyright violation removed Notthere (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.snpp.com/guides/nkkd.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notthere (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If you can find a legitimate source, you may add the material. The Simpsons is not a source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this kind of lengthy personal reminiscence and definitional editorial doesn't belong here; Wikipedia is not a blog or forum. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharking

A simple google indicates that 'sharking' is the name of pulling down a girl's pants for some kind of rapist jollies. This should be reflected at least somewhere in the article. Sharking seems as far from innocent schoolboy japes as possible. Earfetish1 (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Sharking is quite different from "debagging" as a bullying tactic, but the Sharking page got deleted (now recreated as a redirect here, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sharking ), we have to make do with one and the same page. CapnZapp (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned it briefly, with a source, in the "Alternative names" section. That should be plenty sufficient, given all the other variants listed there. If someone has a reliable source indicating a consistently used difference in definition, feel free to clarify and add that source. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge De-pantsing here

Resolved

– The articles have been merged.

That article should be merged here ~~or vice versa.~~ It has more references and goes into the serious side of it, since there have been legal repercussions. It has more U.S. info and this article is Brit-centric. Both terms are widely used per Google news. Edison (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the merger should be kept in one place, at Talk:De-pantsing#Merge to Debagging, and not here. I propose the "De-pantsing" references and text should be merged here. Edison (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In TV and movies" section

Resolved

– Section was deleted.

I think under the section "In Tv and Movies" there should be a link to each of the Tv episodes that are listed so people can see what we are really talking about. That's just my idea. I don't have an account or anything but I think this a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.127.150 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't want to get into a revert war, particularly over something this stupid, I'm going to raise the question here.

Is there any reason to have a "In TV and Movies" section here? It's equivalent to a "In Popular Culture" section, and this is something so simplistic that it's appeared pretty much everywhere. I haven't finished with the guidelines for "in popular culture" sections that I've been working on, much less proposed them to a wider audience, but the section that I've removed twice, and which an IP editor has restored twice, is clearly not in accordance with those proposed guidelines. Can I get a third opinion here? DS (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not needed, per MOS:TRIVIA. This could literally run to hundreds and hundreds of entries. It's like Spit take. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures?

Would it be illegal to post pictures on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.248.91.182 (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they have to be free. Emptyviewers (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially yes, if a) it involved nude children, b) it featured non-consensual humiliation of any party whose face is visible. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be pictures and videos of pantsing on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.101.131 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's no need to illustrate something this obvious. There is no lack of reader understanding that pants go up when you put them on and go down when you or someone else pulls them down. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debagging. 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/20101229091521/http://www.oup.com.au/dictionaries/wotm/dak to http://www.oup.com.au/dictionaries/wotm/dak

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. 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) 15:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Pantsing at this time, per the discussion below. Pantsing had previously been merged to Debagging as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantsing in 2007, so that significant edit history has been moved to the existing redirect at Depantsing and retained (without passing any judgment as to whether that's a backformation or overcorrection). Dekimasuよ! 20:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debagging → Pantsing – WP:COMMONNAME. The previous RM was wrong to suggest "pantsing" is an Americanism; it's also the common term in Australia (when "dakking" isn't used), and Canada, and various other places (the variant depantsing or de-pantsing also turns up in various places, including in the US, but this just makes "pantsing" a bit more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than "debagging" anyway). The UK has no consistent term for this at all, as our article already makes clear. "Debagging" is just a term used at particular British schools. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 19:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "Pantsing" is an American term, based on the very American use of "pants" to mean "trousers" - our Wiki article is trousers, not pants for a start. It may be used elsewhere - but so is "debagging". The Australian Word-of-the day source states that the original term comes from "debag", not "pants".
That's OR supposition; "pants" = "underwear" in Commonwealth English, and has as much to do with the origin of the phrase as North American (not just American) "pants" = "trousers". PS: Even if it were an Americanism, it would be preferable, as a major nation-wide term in the largest nation of English speakers, versus a term only used in a few places within one country and with numerous competing terms in the same country. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, WP:ENGVAR is there precisely to prevent American English being favoured over other varieties of English just because America is "the largest nation of English speakers". That is a complete non-argument on Wikipedia. If it were valid then every single article except those referring specifically to other countries would be written in American English. And that is very definitely against our policies. Your statement that this is "a term only used in a few places within one country" is inaccurate, as I have said below. It may have originated at Oxbridge, but it soon became the universal term within Britain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But "pantsing" appears to be common in various other English-speaking countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It's also demonstrably in use in the UK which makes it a good point of WP:COMMONALITY which is a major component of ENGVAR.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "depantsing" is the commonname - more sources would be required to show this than are currently in the article. Additionally the change would mean a move from BR-ENG to US-ENG, and a change from aforementioned "trousers" to "pants" - although in fairness I note that there is already at least one instance of "behavior" in the article. As per WP:RETAIN, it should stay as debagging. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one suggested "depantsing" is the common name. "De[-]pantsing" is a later back-formation, a form of hypercorrection; same as "de[-]boning a fish", more commonly and for a much longer time "boning a fish". There's a linguistics journal article about this somewhere out there. The gist is that "de[-]" forms originated in Latinate (often via-French) terms, e.g. decapitate, and then began to be assimilated onto Anglo-Saxon words much later in the language (same process as the application of -est instead of a prefixed "most " to AS-derived words). It's why the "de[-]" forms are so rare in words relating to farming and food preparation; no one "de-skins" a rabbit, "de-guts" a deer", "debrains a pig", "dehusks corn", etc. We wouldn't use Depantsing or De-pantsing as the title per WP:CONCISE. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strikeout due to a typo on my part. My argument rests upon "I don't think pantsing is the commonname", not "I don't think depantsing is the commonname" - which should have been obvious really, as the suggested move is to "Pantsing", not "depantsing", and my reference to "pantsing" not "depantsing" as the very first word in my commnet after "Oppose". Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not common name for a grotesquely British joke In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that this is especially British is borne out neither by our article nor by RS. It's common in everything from the US military to pub pool in New Zealand and Australia, gym class bullying worldwide, a sexual fetish most common in Japan, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per grey - when one country has no consistently used term and another one does, we should follow and use the one consistently used term. Red Slash 10:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be far and away the more WP:COMMONNAME, both in general and internationally ([1] vs. [2], and note that not all hits for "debagging" refer to this subject). Outside the US, hits for "pantsing" turn up from Canada,[3][4] Australia,[5][6] New Zealand,[7] and even the UK.[8][9] As such it's a point of WP:COMMONALITY among the varieties of English, which is preferable to using a form that's less common and less recognizable across the world.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear ENGVAR issue. No reason to move. "Debagging" has been a commonly recognised word in Britain (not just at Oxbridge as the nominator seems to be claiming - I didn't go to Oxbridge and I've been familiar with the word since I was a kid) for over a century. Given the article itself gives numerous different words for the act from around the world, moving the article title to the primarily North American term is a clear breach of WP:ENGVAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible for it to be an ENGVAR issue. Repeat: The idea that this is especially British is borne out neither by our article nor by RS. It's common in everything from the US military to pub pool in New Zealand and Australia, gym class bullying worldwide, a sexual fetish most common in Japan, etc., etc. Multiple terms are used in the UK. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you don't think it's an ENGVAR issue. Note that I did not say that the act is especially related to Britain. However, ENGVAR says that if an article already has a name that is specific to one variety of English then it should not be moved to that specific to another variety of English unless it relates more closely to a country that uses that variety of English. You want to move an article on an activity that has many names around the world from a name that is more common in one country to one that is more common in another. That is most definitely an ENGVAR issue. If there was one term that was universally used everywhere except the UK then I might agree with you, but there is not (as the article itself clearly states). There are numerous terms that are used in different English-speaking countries. "Pantsing" is no more common around the world than "debagging". Most British people wouldn't understand the former (since we don't call trousers pants); most Americans probably wouldn't understand the latter. In fact, if we're being brutally honest, the vast majority of people probably wouldn't understand either! You seem to want to move the article from a name that people like me understand and people like you don't to one that people like you understand and people like me don't; that bias towards one variety of English or another is precisely what ENGVAR is there to prevent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is an ENGVAR issue, but WP:COMMONALITY is part of ENGVAR, and the proposed name appears to be common across English-speaking countries.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But not so common as to invalidate the current title. Certainly not in any way universal. It is the commonest term in America and Canada (it's normal for those two countries to share terms). It is not the commonest term in other English-speaking countries. It may be used occasionally, but that's it. I therefore don't think commonality applies here either. Boiled down, this is an attempt to get a British title moved to an American title, simple as. And if accepted, it is a serious undermining of the ENGVAR policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply an attempt to get a specifically British term moved to a title that's more recognizable around the world. "Pantsing" would appear to be far more universal than "debagging", which isn't found at all in American or Canadian English except in the odd piece that notes it as a British term for "pantsing". However, "pantsing" is recognizable in Britain and other English-speaking countries such as Australia and New Zealand (where it's also not called "debagging", but apparently "dacking"[10]). This wouldn't affect ENGVAR, which recommends using terms recognizable across the world.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONALITY is the thing here. There is no strong national tie, and we have evidence of "pantsing" being used in more countries; meanwhile "debagging" isn't even UK-wide. We don't apply ENGVAR to regional colloquialisms, only to dominant national usage; "debagging" doesn't qualify for "ENGVAR protection" because it's not consistent British English. The "'pants' isn't British" argument doesn't work because it means "underwear" in BrEng, and pulling those down along with the trousers is commonly a part of this ... thing. Our article already covers that. "Debagging" is the BrEng equivalent of AuEng "dakking", an ageing derivation from a particular brand or style of trousers; it's a narrow usage with probably a comparatively finite lifespan. If we didn't move it now, we'd move it later. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yes, it looks to me like "pantsing" is a more universally understood term for this concept. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per MOS:COMMONALITY, "pantsing" is understood in both American and British english, while the term "Debagging" is virtually unknown in American english (if anything an American hearing this term would probably think you were referring to teabagging). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:COMMONALITY per Ahecht. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

alternate use of term

[11] I don't think the other usage (from creative writing) deserves its own article, and it seems ok to mention both usages in the current article. I can agree with moving it out of the lede, except then there is the issue of how to alert the reader. I found my way to the current article while trying to find out what the other usage meant. I guess the "right" solution is to write a wikitionary entry about the other usage, and put a hatnote into the present article pointing to it, but editing wiktionary is an even worse bureaucratic hassle than editing wikipedia. :( 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]