Talk:Going steady

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Add popular culture references?

For example the Lyric in the beach boys song "I get around" Jack Nunn Jacknunn ([[1]]) 23:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Going steady" is (was?) a very common term, prevalent in daily use as well as in popular culture. I think popular culture mentions would just be overkill, too many, and what value would it add for readers? Schazjmd (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today's teens

I came here for current information re 2010's (pre-pandemic) teen behavior. The article, as is, seems to die before the previous century. What do today's teens do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, MartinRinehart. I haven't found any research on "going steady" in the 21st century. It seems to have been a practice from the 1940s to the 1980s primarily. Schazjmd (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this question. Both because I have it myself, and because I think it should be clear from the article. The article currently says 'The label "going steady" fell into disuse in the 1970s.' However, from my own experience, clearly the practice of going steady is very much in use now. What is this called at the present day? 'Courtship', as 'See also' links to? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "[John] and I got into courtship", or something like that. 607 (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@607 wikipedia, we can't "make it clear" in the article without reliable sources to support the content. If you find any, please link them here. Schazjmd (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

@Nerd271:, please explain the issue you have with Going steady is a romantic relationship in which both partners commit to date only each other. You've changed it twice. Per MOS:FIRST: If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. Your variations change the subject of the sentence. Why? Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds awkward. Naturalness is more important in good writing. Nerd271 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It doesn't sound awkward at all. I don't think Two romantic partners are said to be going steady if they commit to an exclusive relationship. or In a romantic relationship, if both partners are going steady, then they commit to seeing each other exclusively. are an improvement or more "natural", and neither use the topic as the subject of the first sentence. I don't see any good reason to not make going steady the subject. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A slight improvement to your proposed opening sentence is this. Going steady is when two romantic partners agree to an exclusive relationship. It is succinct and natural. If you still disagree, seek a third opinion. Nerd271 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to that version Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, then. I'll make the change. Thank you for your input.~~ Never mind. You did it. Nerd271 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]