Talk:Pajamas/Archives/2014

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

picture

Looks to me like the girl is only wearing pajama pants. How about a picture that shows a complete pajama?--345Kai 00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a picture of someone wearing pajamas that does not appear freaked out that a picture is being taken of them? The present picture of the young girl in pajamas is a bit creepy due to the expression on the poor girl's face. Sarayuparin 09:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, to me, the picture looks fine; in addition, it has the benefit of displaying two styles (on the girl and the doll). But, I'll ask around, to get others' opinion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The girl in that picture proudly shows it to her friends. You can debate the use of that particular photograph, but please don't call her freaked out, creepy, or a "poor girl." ➥the Epopt 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand this discussion sincer there is a second photograph, contributed by myself, that shows two boys in pajamas looking happy, calm and with two different styles of pajamas. Make it the primary one, if these are issues, but I don't have a problem with the girl being first. --DavidShankBone 16:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Niether image is very encyclopedic. None of the three kids are in a position that gives a clear view of what they're wearing. And what they're wearing isn't very representative of the concept of "pajamas"; the girl appears to be wearing only pajama pants and a t-shirt, and the boys are wearing blanket sleepers, which qualify as "pajamas" only as the term is used inside the U.S. (I'm not complaining, though, since I don't have any better photos that aren't encumbered by copyright.)Anonymous55 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with you, and the word "encyclopedic" is rather meaningless on Wikipedia, thrown around often and never defined. Pajamas aren't a "concept" but an article of clothing, and the ones worn by the boys are similar to the ones I wore as a boy in the 1970's. Just because they are considered "blanket sleepers" in England but pajamas in the U.S. doesn't disqualify them as pajamas, which seems to be what you are saying. --DavidShankBone 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine, "encyclopedic" doesn't mean anything. I only used that word because I was trying to be tactful. They just aren't professional quality photos, and would never get past the editors in a traditional publishing company.
What the boys are wearing would not be called "blanket sleepers" in England (or elsewhere in the UK). "Blanket sleeper" is an American term, and the garment it refers to is pretty much non-existant outside North America. In the UK they'd probably call what the boys are wearing "sleepsuits", as that's the closest term they have. (Although British sleepsuits are strictly limited to infant sizes, and don't much resemble blanket sleepers stylistically.)
In the U.S., at least within the last 50 years or so, "pajamas" is basically a synonym for "sleeping garment". Some people only apply the term to bifurcated garments, as opposed to things like women's nightgowns, but some people even call nightgowns "pajamas". In the UK, however, "pyjamas" refers to a very specific garment, a jacket and trouser combination made of a non-stretch fabric similar to bedsheet material, with hemmed wrist and ankle cuffs, and with the top piece closing down the front with buttons. Anything else isn't "pyjamas" there. And in South Asia, "pyjamas" refers only to the pants, and it's a daytime garment there, not a sleeping garment.
My point is that this is an international encyclopedia, and people all over the world looking for information on "pajamas" or "pyjamas", whatever that word means where they live, are all going to be arriving at this same article. For people outside the U.S., a photo of two boys in blanket sleepers isn't going to be the most helpful image they could be given.Anonymous55 20:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To Anonymous55: I think (and I'm repeating what I said in the section below) you might be exaggerating the sensitivities of the average reader. People, don't always read an encyclopedia to read about "whatever that word means where they live"; they sometime read an encyclopedia for meanings they don't know about, or for a range of meanings. I think we should wait and see how the article evolves as it becomes more comprehensive, and revisit this issue in a month (let's say). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To Anonymous55: Wikipedia is not written by professionals, which is what makes it unique. It's written by me and you. That includes the photographs. Because professional photographers aren't likely to forgo the payment to professionally photograph children or people in pajamas/pyjamas - but if you have a better photograph, it's always welcome. But if 400 million Americans consider the photographs pyjamas/pajamas, it is likely that much of the world will eventually come to see them as the same. The beauty of the English language is its fluidity; afterall, not even the English speak the language of Chaucer. But instead of complaining, what would be more helpful is if you added a section to the page on the use of the world in England. You may want to check out WP:COMPLAIN : When People Complain Rather Than Edit. --DavidShankBone 15:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, I didn't just spontaneously post an unsolicited criticism of your photograph. Your first post to this thread was more-or-less an invitation for feedback. So I gave my personal, honest assessment of the two photos. I'm sorry if it wasn't what you wanted to hear, but that's the risk you take.
I already said I don't have a better photograph that can be used. I have many better photographs, but none that meet Wikipedia's strict licensing requirements for images. I have actually invested a non-trivial amount of time researching this.
Regarding the stuff about the fluidity of the English language, Wikipedia Is Not A Crystal Ball, and it's not a place to promote terms or definitions of terms. It should only relate and reflect how terms are presently, or were previously used. As the term "pajamas" is presently used in most of the World, the blanket sleeper photo is not very representative.
(BTW, I keep getting the feeling that you're under the impression that I'm English. I'm not; I'm American.) Anonymous55 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
To all: As you will have seen, I've added some more pictures to the history, material and custom sections. I also have some mid-19th century illustrations, which I'll eventually add to the history section (when the current images there move to a another section). So, no need to change or remove the images in the lead, which I think are great. I foresee enough images in the article to both placate the most exacting critic and enlighten the densest mind. Let me know, though, what you think about the images I've added, and how they could be improved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Not bad. They all show clear views of the garments, and there's a good diversity, which addresses my two biggest issues with the previous photos. The Two_piece_pajamas.jpg photo looks exactly like the traditional English pajamas, which is good to have (though I don't know if it actually is English or if it's some Asian variety). And I'm not touching the subject of professional quality photos vs. home snapshots again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous55 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Blanket Sleepers and Pajamas

Sorry I wasn't aiming to advertise at all only to duplicate the information on Blanket Sleepers as I know them as Pajamas. I am more familiar with the term Pajamas or Footed Pajamas and feel that the arrangement on Blanket Sleepers should be copied to this Pajamas page. I was just adding one to see how it worked, you Veinor removed it before I had a chance to further update the page. Please clarify why this information should not be duplicated on this page? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikisnug (talk • contribs). at 05:38, 13 November 2006.


I think that Blanket Sleepers should definately be mentioned, at least, in this article. I have actually never heard the term blanket sleeper before, and call them footed pajamas or something similar, which makes them all the more relevent. In any case, they could even just be mentioned as a pajama alternative for younger children if you want to sustain such a harsh dichotomy, but it would be a convenient way to even link to the blanket sleeper article. Goriya 08:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed New Lead Section

Here's roughly how I think the Pajamas article should begin:

Pajamas (also, pyjamas in British and Commonwealth English) is a word with several different, related meanings in the field of clothing:
  • The original pajamas - loose, lightweight drawstring trousers tied around the waist and worn in South and West Asia.
  • A loose, two-piece garment derived from the preceding garment, worn as (especially men's and boys') sleepwear, in Britain, the United States, and other countries. Pyjamas in this sense consist specifically of a jacket and trouser combination, made of a lightweight non-stretch material, similar to the ones used in bed sheets, with the jacket closing down the front with buttons. These first appeared in Britain as a result of British colonial presence in India in the 18th and 19th centuries, and by the 20th century had replaced nightshirts as the dominant style of sleepwear for men and boys there.
  • Other garments derived from the preceding garment, such as women's beach pajamas.
  • (Chiefly American) Any sleeping garment, including the aforementioned jacket and trouser combination but also including many diverse and unrelated styles, often made of stretch knit fabrics and featuring pull-over tops. (See also blanket sleepers, also known as footed pajamas.) Although a distiction is sometimes made between pajamas and non-bifurcated garments such as nightgowns, some speakers in the U.S. include even the latter within the definition of pajamas.
The word "pyjama" was incorporated into the English language from Hindustani (the progenitor language of modern-day Urdu and Hindi). The word originally derives from the Persian word پايجامه Payjama meaning "leg garment."

Anonymous55 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Really sorry! I thought I had replied. I actually had replied, but I think I got distracted by something before I saved my edit. Anyway, your proposed lead opening looks great! Why don't you take a stab at it? Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Anonymous55 05:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain edits

Dear User:Str1977, Could you please explain what you are attempting to do, so that we can help you? The current version was arrived at after a lot of work which included inputs by individuals in the garment industry. It has been stable for two years. It doesn't mean, of course, that it can't be altered, but it will be easier if we know what you consider are the issues. For example, your removal of alternative spellings link is not consistent with a Wikipedia standard; similarly articles don't start out with etymology, which you seem to be attempting. I look forward to your reply here before further changes. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is the tendency to word this as a "P. is a word" article. Words are explained in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia, which is supposed to describe things, concepts or people and not words.
Though Pyjamas may have mayn variations it is not hard to bring them to one definition: two-piece nightwear and garments derived from that. Hence, we do not need a list of possible things and turn this into a disambiguation page.
Note also that we are talking about the meaning of pyjamas today, not about its etymology. The latter should of course be noted and explained but be included in the definition. (So your note about etymology is the complete opposite of what I was doing.)
Finally, your attitude of blanket reverting is apalling IMHO, especially if you raise one particular issue (and note I did not remove anything). If it is one issue, then revert one issue not the whole lot.
As you say, the previous version is not sacrosant (but you do act as if it were) - note the declaration under each editing window (something about "trimmed mercilessly") and the supposed credentials of earlier editors are of no concern either.
BTW, I don't think "my" version is faultless as IMHO it should be possible to merge the remaining to paragraphs (the 2nd and the 3rd).
Str1977 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for offering up cliches about my work being "edited mercilessly." WP:BOLD is not a clarion call to the faithful to pick up their machetes and chop up text, but a balanced expression of rights and responsibilities. It doesn't just tell you to edit, but cautions that "it is important that contributors take care of the common good," and that "any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further." If you feel that you are within your rights to turn an article that looked like this into one that looks like this without so much as a peep in an edit summary, and, moreover, to (i) incorrectly favor one interpretation of "pajamas," and (ii) turn "original meaning," which remains a current meaning, to an archaic meaning and make it a part of the etymology, then, I'm afraid, I feel it is my responsibility to "blanket revert" you, and ask you politely to explain what you are doing. I am not privy to your thought processes and can't divine what you might be attempting unless you tell me. Moreover, you are not a newcomer, Str1977 (talk · contribs), and I don't feel obliged to hold your hand and give you an A for effort. I have been unfailingly polite, so please don't be appalled.
Now to attend to your explanation. If the problem is "P is a word," it can be easily fixed without resorting to any of the things that you have done. You have given primacy to one interpretation of "pajamas." For example in all of South and Southwest Asia, they are simply loose trousers. Can you provide evidence that pajamas are mostly what you seem to be telling us they are? A consensus of scholarly opinion perhaps? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
PS Before we wrote up the version that you have altered we had already checked other secondary and tertiary sources (including OED, Webster's Unabridged, and Britannica); here, for example, is how Britannica starts, "loose, lightweight trousers first worn in the East, or a loose two-piece suit consisting of trousers and a shirt, made of silk, cotton, or synthetic material and worn for sleeping or lounging." Furthermore, this edit from almost two years ago, will not only show you the OED definition, but also point out that spelling differences are not footnoted, as you now seem to have done. Look forward to your sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Since you haven't replied, I will be tagging the article for both citations and imbalance. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't replied? Do you think I will watch through the night looking for a chance to reply? But tagging is fair enough, much better than the previous blanket reverting.
Now, sources are of course a good thing and I will look into them but please note that the previous version had no sources either. And of course some things are not based on sources. Placing a see also in the text is not good style and contrary to your claims I did not move a spelling diference into a footnote. Talks about "POV" are nonsensical!
As for definitions, I am of course open to improvements but a list giving the appearance that pyjamas cannot be defined is not acceptable. If the OED can simply what pyjamas are, then we can do that too. What matters is not where the word came from but what it denotes today in the English language (and not in Hindustani).
I cannot agree with your claim of being "unfailingly polite" - you blanket reverted me twice (all the while claiming an adherence to 1RR) and seem to think (despite talking differently) that the previous version has special protection. Str1977 (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous version was not claiming that one of several meanings was the primary meaning. We had the references for each form of the garment (if you read the discussions above), but it was decided in the end to leave them out in the lead. If you are really doubting that I don't have sources, please tell me, and I'll provide half a dozen for each.

Yes, Pajamas cannot be defined as mostly one thing. Note Britannica and OED both resort to X or Y or The OED doesn't state what they are as one thing, but lists the several meanings. The first bullet, which you removed, is a current meaning and in the English language, not in Hindustani, and it refers to a currently worn garment (by millions and millions of people). You can't turn it into either an archaic form or a foreign form. If ultimately all you are saying is "say 'pajamas' are garments which can be: (a)..., (b)...," that's an easy fix. Meanwhile, I'll look for those sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

PS BTW, I written (or co-written) several articles on garments: Kurta, Nehru jacket, Churidar, Salwar kameez, ... All the others have straight forward leads. If pajamas were that simple, don't you think I would have made their lead straight forward too? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
"The previous version was not claiming that one of several meanings was the primary meaning."
That's exactly the problem. The previous version was not an encyclopedic article at all but a dictionary entry about a word supposedly used for four different items. This is not what WP or any encyclopedia is about, especially since two of these items are mostly identical and constitute the vast majority of occurences, with the other two being a) the original garment from which the term originated and b) an extension of the "sleeping garment" meaning.
Could you stop talking in pluralis maiestatis? Als "it was decided in the end to leave them out in the lead." Since this is not lead summarising text further down but the only appearance of this information sources are instrumental and cannot be simply left out. Str1977 (talk)
Without reading the whole discussion: It really looks weird that now we have an introduction with like 7 [citation needed] in it, when originally there was a properly sourced introduction sentence. That can't be it. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Because we are now favoring one of the several meanings of the term with "mostly." Note OED, Britannica pick no such favorites; neither had we before user:Str1977 decided to edit the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In the previous version, footnote 1 provided the source for meanings 1, 2, and 3, and the links, such as blanket sleeper provided the sources for the text in bullet 4. We had originally provided the entire OED definition (as you will see in this edit, but it was decided to not quote it verbatim. If you are going to say "Pyjamas mostly refer to a loose, two-piece garment worn as sleepwear, especially by men and boys, in Britain, the United States and other countries," then I'm going to put fact tags on "mostly," "two-piece," and "sleepwear," to ensure that you provide sources for all the crucial terms in the text. By sources, of course, I don't mean any source out there, but a preponderance of secondary sources or reliable tertiary sources like Britannica or OED. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Your fact tagging is overkill. Str1977 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:LS stipulates that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. ... In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." With that in mind, here is how I think we can get the best of both worlds:

Pajamas, also spelled pyjamas (see spelling differences etc.) can refer to several related types of clothing. The original pyjamas are loose, lightweight drawstring trousers tied around the waist and worn in South and West Asia. In Britain, the U.S., and other countries etc. ... Other garments are derived from the preceding garment, such as women's beach pyjamas. Chiefly in the U.S., pajamas refers to any of a wide variety of (mostly two-piece) sleeping garments worn by both genders, including the aforementioned jacket and trouser combination, but also including many unrelated styles.

I'd move the etymology/terminology note out of the lead (possibly to the "history" section), since it would otherwise appear in the lead without being covered in the remainder of the article, as per WP:LS. Basically, I would restore the content that was in place prior to User:Str1977's edits, stripped of the bulleted list layout, the notes on etymology/terminology, and the somewhat awkward "P is a word" opening sentence. It doesn't make much sense to say "pajamas refers mostly to this or that"; after all, it depends on what part of the world you are from and/or the historical context you are considering. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if
  • the lead gets a proper definition in the beginning and not a "pyjames are a word that means four things"
  • the sleeping garment items are merged into one comprehensive description as they generally cover the same item (with variations of course) and are put in the primary position.
Str1977 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, thanks, Jack, for writing! I am sorry, I didn't notice these posts; for some reason, this page went off my watchlist. Thanks, Str1977, for replying as well. I pretty much agree with everything you have said, Jack, and with most things you have said, Str1977. I have rewritten the lead in light of your suggestions. I came to realize (as I started working on the rewrite) that I hadn't paid the page much attention since early 2007, and, if nothing else, it needed updating, and I would like to thank you, Str1977, for noticing the problem first.
In the rewrite, I have, however, not made "pajamas as sleepwear" the primary meaning of the garment. I feel that the lead, as it stands now, proceeds from the old to the new, from the original use (which remains a current use) to the derived use, and to the extended use, and I feel that there is some value to such a sequence. Furthermore, in the tertiary sources I have consulted (Britannica, OED, for example), the sleepwear version of the garment is not listed first. Since I have incorporated many of your suggestions, Str1977, I feel that it is only fair—in the interests of consensus—that you provide sources first should you decide to change the order in the lead. Thanks again, both. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
PS I will be tweaking the text in the next few days, but I would definitely welcome any suggestions for improvements. I should add that I have deliberately used both British and American terms and spellings; I feel that exclusive use of one will likely alienate users of the other. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, may I suggest shortening the introduction to just the bare essentials and move the rest to the body of the article? I would suggest: In south and west Asia, Pajamas refer to loose, lightweight trousers fitted with drawstring waistbands. In the United Kingdom, the United States, and many English-speaking nations, pajamas are loose-fitting, two-piece garments derived from the original garment and worn chiefly for sleeping, or but also for lounging. We can create separate sections for the different types in the body below and move the rest of the information to those. This lets the reader know about the several types immediately without getting mired in details. Clear sections would also make it easier to expand on the several different types in the future. Ando228 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. How is it now? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done. It reads much better now. The rest of the article is better setup for expansion too. Something else to consider (you don't have to explain it to me in the discussion) is whether by "original" you mean historical? If not, what's the difference between original and traditional if they are both still used today. Ando228 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of images

I'm not sure if this is deliberate on someone's part or the result of different editors trying to fix what may have been an inadvertent removal by an IP, but if some editors are purposefully removing images—either those up top or in the history section—please discuss your reasons for doing so here first. Thanks and regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry, but a change like this with an edit comment of "enabling dead links" seems very questionable to me, also when seing that it actually reverts back to a very old version (at least close to that, didn't look for the exact match). --PaterMcFly talk contribs 07:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to write more in the edit summary, but I accidentally hit the carriage return or some other key instead of the shift key. The point is that there is a reason why the images are not all together in one gallery (as in the version you have reverted to). The first four go with the lead; the remaining four with the history section. The version I have rolled back to was the last version that had consensus and was arrived at after a lot of discussion on the talk page. I was on long Wikibreak and didn't get a chance to monitor the article. There is very little difference in actual content between the two versions (except for the sentence giving us the different colloquial names pj's, jammies, jimjams, ... There is no reason why they should be in the lead, indeed even in the article. Besides, as I pointed out, all the footnotes with their illustrative Life Magazine photographs have now become dead links. A lot of work went into that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As for the table (ABC survey) I removed, it properly belongs to the Nightwear page, if it belongs anywhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I agree about the images, that big gallery really made the article look a bit strange. I do think that table is interesting and at least gives some facts (it is really hard to find information about sleep customs - do you have any?) and it was at least better than those unsourced statements that were there before (very end of the diff). But you're probably right, it should be in a more generic article than this. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take another look at the table. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

South Africa, Night Suits

Under Types of Pyjamas, it states that pyjamas are known as night suits in South Africa. Can we please have a reference for this? I'm certain that this is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.65.159 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

The result of the proposal was not moved as a term without an English singular form; not moved to Pyjamas per WP:ENGVAR.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pajamas → Pajama —

As a general rule, unregistered users can do everything that registered users can. Unregistered users may edit articles, participate in talk page discussions, contribute to policy proposals and do (almost) everything else that a registered user can do.
This is a talk page discussion, designed to establish consensus as to whether a page should be moved.
On the few occasions when decisions on Wikipedia are decided by democracy (e.g. request for adminship, elections to the arbitration committee) unregistered users may not vote.
This is not one of those situations. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I've been involved in WP:RM for a while now under various IP addresses, perfectly legitimately. Your 'evidence' is one misguided user coming to the same, wrong, conclusion as you.
:) Well, that "misguided user" is an admin who has been actively involved in framing Wikipedia policy for many years now! Anyway, I did ask another admin and he seems to be siding with you, so I'm unscratching my previous scratch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Aaanyway, rant over, proved my WP:POINT... oppose for all the same reasons. Pajamas/pyjamas is a Plurale tantum. You don't see pages called Trouser or Scissor, for instance. 86.6.193.43 (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've been editing this page since December 2006, but have never seen anyone propose this spelling (although the original Hindi/Urdu "paijama" is singular and refers only to the pajama bottom). Well, WP:SINGULAR also says, "Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) ..." "Pajamas" is US spelling. Webster's Unabridged (the unofficial standard for AmE) redirects "pajama" to "pajamas." That means "pajamas" is also an exception to WP:SINGULAR. Besides, the title has been stable in the spelling, "pajamas," for almost six years, so changing it it would require "reasons ... based on strong national ties to the topic." (See WP:RETAIN) For better or worse, pajamas are now a truly international garment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I agree with all above. Pyjamas are never referred to in the singular, so the article title should remain plural. Reyk YO! 06:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Also agree with points above from Fowler&fowler --Mjrmtg (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I see pajamas as equivalent to trousers, which is an example of an exception to WP:SINGULAR. –CWenger (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
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.

Word origin

2nd paragraph in intro states that the word originated in a spaceship. I guess some clown thought this was funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.158.23 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Hindi and Bengali Categories

First of all this article refers to the use of Pajamas in western context which has nothing to do with Hindi. Secondly, Pajamas is derived from Persian word Pajama which itself is a combination of two words; pa (foot) and jama (wear). Only the real origin of the word should matter which obviously is not Hindi. Pajamas in it's English form is neither Hindi nor Bengali. It is pure English. That is why I believe Hindi and Bengali Categories should be removed. Szhaider 12:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't refer to "Pajamas in the western context" as you put it. It refers to the word and the garment as they are used today in all contexts. The word was incorporated into the English language from Hindustani (the progenitor of the standard registers of Urdu and Hindi) and not from Bengali, or directly from Persian. Here are the etymologies from three dictionaries:
  • From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. See here for complete details. ETYMOLOGY: Hindi pāijāma, loose-fitting trousers : Persian pāī, leg (from Middle Persian; see ped- in Appendix I) + Persian jāmah, garment.
  • From the Oxford English Dictionary on-line edition. [a. Pers. and Urdū pāë (pāÿ) jāmah, f. Pers. pāë, pāÿ foot, leg + jāmah clothing, garment. In Persian, a n. singular; in Eng. made plural with -s, after breeches, drawers, trousers, etc. pyjamas is now standard in the U.K., pajamas in the U.S.]
  • From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. See here for more details. Etymology: Hindi & Urdu pAjAma, from Persian pA leg + jAma garment.
Here is also the actual definition from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED, 1989 edition): a. Loose drawers or trousers, usually of silk or cotton, tied round the waist, worn by both sexes in Turkey, Iran, India, etc., and adopted by Europeans in those countries, especially for night wear; hence applied outside Asia (orig. in trade use) to a sleeping suit of loose trousers and jacket. In extended use, applied to a similar day-time or evening garment worn by women (see also beach-pyjamas s.v. BEACH n. 4, palazzo pyjamas s.v. PALAZZO 3). Also (occas.) sing., as pyjama.
Finally, here are early examples of usage from the OED from 1800 onwards: 1800 Misc. Tracts in Asiat. Ann. Reg. 342/2 Memorandum relative to Tippoo Sultaun's wardrobe... 3d, pai jamahs, or drawers. Ibid., Pai Jamahs. 1834 MEDWIN Angler in Wales I. 188 In a pair of ‘pigammahs’ and a shirt. 1839 THACKERAY Major Gahagan iii, I stripped him of his..peijammahs. 1840 E. E. NAPIER Scenes & Sports For. Lands II. v. 156 Equipped in our broad straw hats, shirts, light silk or muslin ‘piejamahs’. 1845 STOCQUELER Handbk. Brit. India (1854) 108 He usually undresses, puts on his pajamas (the loose Turkish trouser). 1859 LANG Wand. India 360 Pyjamahs of red silk trimmed with gold lace. 1878 E. S. BRIDGES Diary 6 Sept. in Round World in Six Months (1879) iii. 37, I relinquished my English chemise de nuit and took to pyjamas—bedclothes are not used at this time of year [in Japan]. 1886 Girl's Own Paper 23 Oct. 59/1 The pattern for this month..is a combination nightgown, or lady's ‘pyjama’. 1893 EARL DUNMORE Pamirs I. 277 They wore the usual short blue silk cloak and loose white pyjamas. 1897 [see sleeping-suit s.v. SLEEPING vbl. n. 2b]. 1903 Smart Set IX. 122/1 I'd as lief be seen in my pajamas. 1932 Barker's Spring Catal. This ideal pyjama is made of a very soft washing cotton. 1932 Boston Even. Transcript 6 Aug. 1 Clad in pajamas and admitting to police that she was returning home from a party, Mary Callahan, twenty four..was arrested at seven o'clock this morning.
The use of both the word and the garment worldwide is a result of the British historical presence in India (as the usage above indicates). That history is important in an encyclopedia article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This really needs to be treated as three different (related and overlapping) subjects, for the three different definitions used in the U.S., the UK, and South Asia, respectively. Splitting it into three articles would probably be overkill, but I think information relating to each of the definitions should be physically seperated within the article. Otherwise it's just going to go in circles with editors from different regions each trying to pull the article in the direction of the definition used in their own region.Anonymous55 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Not really. If Britannica can manage the manifold meanings of pajamas smoothly in one narrative, (see Pajamas), so can Wikipedia. I, personally, don't see the need for separate sections, at least not at this stage of the game. No one seems to be pulling it in any direction (as I see it). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You just did it yourself with your edits today. Before your edits, the article was very much oriented to the American definition. Now it's very much British and South Asian oriented. Look at the article history. It's been happening virtually since the article was created.
I can't see the Britannica article since I don't have a subscription, but the abstract which I can see is very much focused on the British definition, which is hardly surprising since it's the Encyclopedia Britannica.Anonymous55 21:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it is British and South Asia oriented. (Britannica, BTW, is not British; it is published in Chicago, and for many years use to say on its title page, "published in conjunction with the University of Chicago," or words to that effect. See Encyclopædia Britannica.) After all, the primary spelling is American. Most of what I added was history and that, for better or worse, is British and South Asian. I searched two encyclopedias (one British, the other American, in your lingo) and two dictionaries (again, British and American); of them, three (Websters (American), OED (British), and Britannica (British)) had the following order (as the entry from Websters below indicates):

Main Entry: pa·ja·mas
Pronunciation: -m&z
Function: noun plural
Etymology: plural of pajama
1 : loose lightweight trousers formerly much worn in the Near East
2 : a loose usually two-piece lightweight suit designed especially for sleeping or lounging

Learn more about "pajamas"

The fourth, Encarta (American) didn't have any article for "Pajamas," but did have one for "India: pajama-kurta, which said:

Men in northern India may also wear a pants-and-shirt outfit called the pajama-kurta. The pajama, which originated in India, is made of white cloth and can be loose or form-fitting. The tight-fitting style is often worn with a long closed-collar coat (the sherwani) made famous in the West when India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, wore it.

Given, that the tertiary sources gave primacy of meaning to the daywear in South and West Asia over nightwear worldwide, I changed the order in the lead. I think you might be exaggerating the problems of bias. I'd say, let's wait and see how it evolves in the next month, and then revisit the issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the article is biased, at least in the NPOV sense. And my concern isn't for the sensitivities of the reader. I'm not trying to push one regional definition of "pajamas" over another. (And if you'll notice, my comment to DavidShankBone had to do with his image being applicable only to the American definition.)
I'm just saying I think the article has a practical problem caused by the differences in the way the term "pajamas/pyjamas" is used in different countries, and that that problem is impeding the development of the article. Different people pull the article in different directions, and their efforts cancel each other out and are wasted. And contexts get all mixed up, so the article makes a bunch of statements which are accurate in isolation, but don't make any sense the way they're put together. And that lack of coherence makes the article harder to edit, again impeding its development.
I've never edited the article, and don't intend to, so you don't need to worry about an edit war or anything. I'm just giving my feedback, and offering a solution to what I see as a problem.
You say you didn't make the article more British/South Asian oriented, because you mostly just added some history. But the history you gave was specifically the history of what the British call pajamas, and the subset of American pajamas that resemble them. The information you gave was perfectly fine and accurate, but you're calling it the history of "pajamas", when many garments that Americans call pajamas, such as blanket sleepers and ski-style pajamas, have nothing to do with that history, other than etymology. They have their own history, which began as an offshoot of the styles of underwear introduced in the Victorian dress reform movement of the 19th century, and owe much more of their styling to the Flammable Fabrics Act of 1953 than they do to British imperialism.
I'm not complaining about the order of the sleepwear vs. non-sleepwear definitions. They're both legitimate, and one of them has to come first. I just think that the article needs to explain what the term "pajamas" means in different countries, with at least one paragraph devoted to each definition, and that when the article makes statemets like "pajamas are sometimes one-piece garments" or "the wearing of pajamas is sometimes seasonal", that it's made clear which definition or definitions is/are being referred to. Anonymous55 02:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I don't disagree with much of what you say above. I myself first laid my eyes on this page 2 days ago, so I'm not really up on its history (and whether competing definitions and their advocates pull the article in different directions that result in a "zero sum," as it were). But I do plan to add some text (mostly to the British/South Asian version of pajamas, but not exclusively). Sounds like you know something about blanket sleepers. Why don't you have a go at that? Let's say we'll be attentive to the pull of the different definitions and aim for some kind of long-term homeostasis. How does that sound? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
There's already a seperate article on the blanket sleeper, most of which I wrote. So I don't think the Pajamas article needs to go into detail on that subject, other than to say that blanket sleepers fall within the range of garments called "pajamas" in the United States.
I could take a crack at the kind of reorganization to the Pajamas article that I was talking about. But I'm not sure I'm qualified. The problem is that the blanket sleeper is the only part of the subject that I know well, and that's the one area that doesn't need to be covered, because it already is in the other article. In any event I'd want to wait a few days to see if anyone else has input on this thread before going live with any changes.
I wouldn't say that people have been consciously pushing POVs. I think it's just a case of people from different countries not being aware of the different definitions, and adding informantion that applies to one definition without qualifying it, and other people deleting the same information because it doesn't match what they know. (Britannica, BTW, didn't have this issue since it wasn't written as a wiki.) Anonymous55 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick look at blanket sleeper and I like the way it is organized. I'll go through it in more detail in the next day or two and try to figure out how best to apply that kind of organization to pajamas. Why don't you mull over that issue as well, if you have the time? We can then trade notes here before we make any major changes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't think I'm really in a position to do anything on the scale of the Blanket Sleeper article on the general subject of Pajamas. However I've written a rough draft of how I think this article should begin, which I'm posting as a new topic below. It needs some work, obviously, but see if it's more-or-less something that would work for you. Anonymous55 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Pyjamas

The spelling of "pyjamas" is not 'British' English. It is the spelling most widely used globally. See:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pajamas/Archives/2014&oldid=1137067274"