Jump to content

Talk:Pajamas/Archives/2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Spelling

Doesn't the Wikipedia Manual of Style promote using British spellings? If so shouldn't the spelling Pyjamas me used in the whole article and the header too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.121.47 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is headquartered in the US and many of its articles (I'm guessing) are written by US editors. Hard to imagine they'd be spelling "pajamas" as "pyjamas." Besides Wikipedia has all kinds of "conventions" about respecting the original (primary) spelling of an article. But, really, dear IP, you can't change the spelling in an image name! That will reduce a beautiful image of traditional pj's in any which spelling to meaningless red text!! Sorry, but I have to revert. Is spelling, really, such a big deal?? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The OED has many variant spellings including paunjammahs, paejamus, paijamahs, peijammahs, piejamahs, pigammahs, pajamas, pyjamahs , pyjamas, pyjammas, paijamas. The primary standard spelling seems to be pyjamas and so I agree with the IP editor above. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The rule is basically "Don't change spelling without a good reason." It might be worth noting that the article originally did use the non-US spelling until this edit. Now, Neutrality did have a reason, as noted above. However, was it good? The US spelling is generally going to be more common so it seems to me that an argument from which term is more common is biased towards US English and therefore at odds with WP:ENGVAR. On the other hand, the article has been pretty stable at this new spelling for over four years. JIMp talk·cont 10:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? Pajamas? I have never seen that written before (but, granted, it's not the kind of word that you write every day). Most American spellings make sense and make the language easier for bad spellers or people with dyslexia (and why is dyslexia such a difficult word to spell?) but 'pajamas' doesn't even represent its pronunciation - or do Americans really pronounce it that way? The word 'pyjama' is closer to its Indian roots and the form used in the UK, Ireland and most other English-speaking countries. It is also the form closer to spelling in other languages (i.e. they use 'py' or 'pi' or something representing this sound). Just because America does it one way doesn't mean it's right. The USA elected George W Bush as president (well OK only in 2004 as he stole it in 2000) but that doesn't mean the rest of the world should also elect idiots.--217.203.162.219 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to say the US spelling is going to be more common. It may be more common on the internet, but the internet is not the world. In particularly developing countries, a number of which, e.g. India, Malaysia, Nigeria, Kenya have relatively high percentages of second language English speakers are generally rather unrepresented on the internet and use some variant of Commonwealth English. Even when it comes to the US vs developed commonwealth countries I believe the American internet saturation is higher then a number of them (even if lower then countries like Sweden etc). It probably get's even worse when one considers the number of websites. That's one of the many reasons why Google comparisons are always a bad idea in cases like this particularly when engvar comes into play Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If the original spelling of the article was "pyjamas" it should never have been moved to "pajamas" as the topic isn't US-specific. Lachrie (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article should be pyjamas rather than pajamas for two reasons:
  • 1) The article was created as pyjamas, and no good reason was given for moving it to pajamas.
  • 2) As the word came into the English language via the British in India, and then was adopted by the Amercians at a later date, historical precedence makes the British spelling and thus pyjamas the orginal one that should be used. 'Might is right' and arguments about more users using the American spelling do not count - see WP:ENGVAR. 86.152.23.225 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, "pajamas"? Are you kidding me? I cannot recall having seen this spelling anywhere except in this article. (While this does not imply that have never seen it, it does imply that it cannot be that common. And, yes, I am well-read in US literature.) Additionally, the international (other language) variations I have seen over the years have all used some minor variation of "pyjamas". I very strongly suggest a rename. 94.220.247.95 (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Many people have already pointed out that the spelling should be listed as "pyjamas" and I agree. It seems odd that the heading should be spelt "Pajamas" and the opening should read, "PYJAMA, spelled pajama in America..." and then further go on to use "pyjama" throughout the article. Furthermore, the second paragraph says, "The word pyjama or pyjama..." which is redundant.

Move to "pyjamas"

Pajamas → Pyjamas —

  • "Pajama" is a US-only spelling, users worldwide viewing English Wikipedia do not spell it this way. The fact that the article starts out explaining that "pajama" is only in the US seems awkward. ("Pyjamas, or pajamas in the US" would be more fitting.)Secondplanet (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2015

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: Not moved. Editors were evenly divided on the merits of the move, and 3 policy points were cited: WP:TITLEVAR, WP:RETAIN, and WP:TITLECHANGES.
WP:TITLEVAR is not relevant, because there was general consensus that the topic does not have particular ties to any flavour of English, p[ay]jamas being worn all around the world.
It is unclear whether WP:RETAIN applies to article titles, but WP:TITLECHANGES does apply: "if an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". As some editors noted, this article has been stable at its current title for over ten years, so TITLECHANGES applies: there is no consensus on a good reason to change, nor any strong policy reason to change.
Note that some subsiduary clauses of TITLECHANGES apply only if the title "has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be", whereas this title has been stable ... but even if it was unstable, that clause requires us to "default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". Since the page was still a stub when moved to "pajamas" on 14 November 2004 ([1] and [2]), the first non-stub version was at the "pajamas title".
So, per WP:TITLECHANGES, this is quite clearcut. (Personally, I prefer "pyjamas", but policy is policy and a closing admin's personal preference is not policy). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pajamas → Pyjamas – "Pyjamas" is the original spelling in English and is used in a number of countries (UK, Ireland, India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand) while "pajamas" is an American spelling (Canada seems to use both). "Pyjamas" was the original title of the article — it was moved (reason given as "the more common term" - which it isn't) about two years after creation. This has been discussed on the article's talk page under "Spelling". Robina Fox (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: @Robina Fox can you provide a link to this move please? I can't find it in the move log. If you can demonstrate this move took place then a move back to pyjamas would be supported by WP:RETAIN. If it can't be proven that a move from pyjamas to pajamas took place then WP:RETAIN would support the status quo. However if this is the case then the other option would be to demonstrate this proposal falls under WP:COMMONALITY which states that a universally used term should be favoured over a regional term and would prevent objections using WP:RETAIN. Ebonelm (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Possibly it was before the current move procedure was set up? The article was created 2 Dec 2002, moved 14 Nov 2004 by Neutrality - who refers to the move at the top of this page under "Older".Robina Fox (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Support move: that seems a reasonable argument, having looked back at the earliest page entries this article clearly started off as pyjamas. Ebonelm (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Calidum, WP:TITLEVAR is used when a topic has a notable connection to one specific country, pyjamas/pajamas are clearly not particularly related to the United States. If anything WP:TITLEVAR would support Indian or British English spelling, which would be pyjamas. Ebonelm (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:TITLEVAR: "All national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa." Calidum T|C 22:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per national connection to Indian English. As for WP:RETAIN the article appears to have started with "pyjama" in lead, which would indicate pyjama was also title - early moves or move warring can erase history. Plus the y sound is found in all languages worldwide - include the related Persian Indian British colonial spellings. The only 3 languages to have equated the a are American and American-English dominated Japanese and Korean. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment in octu oculi, isn't WP:RETAIN the exact argument that was used against changing articles like humour back to their original title and english spelling? Can it cut both ways, or is it only allowed for certain royal varieties of english to be retained? ~~ipuser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.62.161 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 May 2015
The 'non-stub' clause is used as a tie-breaker and should only be used when "no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue". In this case an English version was established and then changed without discussion. To be honest the current wording of WP:RETAIN makes it very unclear whether a stub can establish a variety. The very first version of this page to me clearly establishes the use of pyjamas, which also clearly notes that a different spelling is used in the United States. Ebonelm (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
It isn't clear that MOS:RETAIN applies to article titles. However, WP:TITLEVAR, a part of our article titles policy, clearly does. There is no justification for a change. RGloucester — ☎ 21:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but as we just saw with humour the argument that an English version was established and changed without discussion holds absolutely no merit whatsoever, and will make the page subject to a move block (i.e. apparently, British consensus (with the obvious exception of RGloucester) is that that policy doesn't hold). ~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Has anyone actually figured out what the original version of English this was written is was? Was it originally in british English or American English? The user who created the page hasn't done much since '03, but they seemed to be fairly North American topics. I will, of course, unambiguously, certainly, lend my support to whichever version was first. Cheers, ~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Answer: the very first version of this article clearly uses pyjamas (using the term pyjamas 4 times) and only using the term pajamas once (when explicitly noting that a different spelling is used in the United Statses). As the move log system had not been created at this point a direct link to show that a move took place can't be provided however with this talk page edit it is clear that a user moved the page to pajamas from another title. That's about as close to conclusive evidence that this move request is going to be able to show. Ebonelm (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The history of the Pyjamas page shows the move. Robina Fox (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Then I support moving it back to the original version that it was written in. Makes sense to me. Cheers ~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - when there is no clear connection to one english speaking country over another, our title guidelines permit all varieties of English. Moving a long-standing stable title from its name would be silly at best and pettily nationalistic at worst. Additionally, raw google search results, even from google UK, show that Pajamas is a more common term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
"If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." If this argument is coming down to parsing through actions taken a decade ago before the bulk of the article was developed, clearly we are not going in the right direction here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, had the variety of English never been changed in the first place, that would have been the ideal situation, but it was. It is only fair we move it back, or else, it'll just cause another and another and another problem, see humour and yogurt. So, still supporting the move, obviously ~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
One cannot go to a Wikipedia entry where someone made a bold edit a decade ago and undo it citing BRD. Trying to make it about "fair" or "unfair" is simply moving this one way or another for petty nationalistic reasons. There are 2 very clear reasons why a variety of English can be acceptably changed -- a direct tie to one reason (like Ireland to Irish English, or an issue like, say, elevator vs. lift where it comes down to technical reasons of a disambiguated vs undisambiguated argument. The fact that we're leafing through edits from a decade ago to turn over a long-term stable article is completely illogical.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that we should put "stability" before improving Wikipedia's world-wide relevance. Robina Fox (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for stability's sake. I wish we could just have separate American and British English portals for WP so we don't have to go through this ridiculous, petty debate quite so often. Krychek (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
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.

Solution to spelling dilemma - find the earliest text incorporating 'pyjamas' or 'pajamas'?

Wouldn't the evidence from the earliest printed mention of this garment solve this disputed spelling? The earliest (digitised) text in 'pyjamas' is used that I can find using Ngram is "The East India Vade-Mecum Or Complete Guide to Gentlemen Intended for the Civil, Military Or Naval Service ... Volume 1" by Thomas H. Williamson, Publisher Black, Parry and Kingsburry, 1810 (Original from the Bavarian State Library)


Others may be able to come up with texts in which the spelling 'pajamas' is used. However it would be essential to seek out the original printed text to confirm the original spelling as it may have been autocorrected in the OCR software.

sinarau (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pajamas/Archives/2015&oldid=1090574143"