Jump to content

Talk:Pajamas

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

Vandalism

[edit]

As of 2023-12-11, I've noticed many changes, mainly numbers and dates, that haven't been reverted back since 2023-02-19, and I didn't read the entirety of the page, so I would recommend a proper review of the accuracy of this page.

I'm tracing the vandalism to this revision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pajamas&oldid=1140282347

compare with the previous one (before the vandalism):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1140282347&oldid=1139322263&title=Pajamas&diff-type=inline

and compare the previous one with the current one to see that those dates and numbers remained after the vandalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pajamas&diff=cur&oldid=1139322263 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.112.71.229 (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


PJs vs Pajamas in image captions

[edit]

Considering that the picture is actually titled "JessiePyjamas", I fail to see why it is necessary to describe her garments as "PJs" in the caption. Could Fowler&fowler please explain what is added by this useless incorporation of a colloquial name for this one image? --Khajidha (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha: PJs is no longer colloquial (i.e. conversational), but informal (i.e. everyday language) in American English. We give at the outset the different spelling of the etymons (pyjamas pajamas) and of the clipped or shortened forms (PJs, jammies). WP:CAPTION does not say that informal forms cannot be used, only that the caption be informative and succinct. I don't know who added the image with that caption, but it was done years ago. It is both informative and succinct. There is no reason to change it. A reader, besides, sees a different name in use, which they normally would not in the main text. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) We must be speaking different American Englishes then, because it's very much a colloquialism where I'm from. 2) "We give at the outset..." Exactly, we name the article one thing, list alternate terms, and then write the article using the title. This makes no more sense than would using "pavement" in captions on sidewalk, "crisps" in captions on potato chip, or "lorry" in captions on truck. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in the article body, only in the picture caption, which has its own MOS (see above). As for informal, it is very much a part of written English, not just conversational (=colloquial). Here are two OED examples, with years:

1970 New Yorker 4 Oct. 122/3 (advt.) Cotton sleep culotte rated perfect for P.J. parties. 1982 People (Nexis) 26 Apr. 106 Tiegs'..slinky nightgowns ($23) and practical PJs (under $25) have found willing buyers in an ailing economy. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Alternative_names_in_captions. In summary, I don't see a problem with either term in the caption. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead picture

[edit]

The Emily Eden picture has been in the article for years. I know because I added it and maintained this article for a long time before it went off my watchlist. We cannot remove it without a discussion here first in which a consensus has been reached for its removal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Johnbod What kept you so long? The article has needed your input for years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Btw, I've set up Commons cats for Emily Eden and Portraits_of_Princes_and_Indian_People%27,_London,_1844 - we had 15. What was her role in the illustrations, do you know? Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She did the drawings, and also watercolors, and others converted them to lithographs, I think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the very bottom here, here, and BL page, which you must have seen. I don't know too much about lithography, but I doubt she would have been involved in that aspect. PS I might not have understood your question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's very helpful - I hadn't seen any of those. Some picture files imply the other bloke did the drawings & she the lithos, which I didn't think was right. We'd better start calling her an artist in her bio Emily Eden then. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Will see what I can find quickly to get the ball rolling. Very talented woman, it seems. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2020

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Quite obviously no consensus whether the "strong" ties mentioned at MOS:TIES are strong enough to outweigh WP:RETAIN. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Pajamas → Pyjamas – Pyjamas is the canonical spelling in Indian English. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JIP: I think you should peruse MOS:ENGVAR, as this is not American English Wikipedia, British English Wikipedia, Oxford English Wikipedia either. WP policy is to allow any variety of English given that the article doesn't have strong ties to a particular country, in which case use that variety. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the article says that the word originates from Indian English, which spells it "pyjamas", and as previously stated, the word is spelled "pyjamas" everywhere outside the USA, which already makes up the majority of the world's English speakers, and as I already stated, I have never seen it spelled "pajamas" outside Wikipedia. So my vote stays at support. JIP | Talk 23:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you're agreeing with me, but I was merely responding to the comment Although this is the English Wikipedia and not the Indian English Wikipedia, which is not a line of argumentation that would work with English WP given MOS:ENGVAR. Getsnoopy (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The topic has weak ties to India, which just about override contributing editors' preference for the US spelling. Certes (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I have the dubious honor of being the major contributor to this page. I say "dubious" because I added most of the content long ago, in 2007, and the majority of my edits are in the nature of reverts carried out thereafter. There have already been quite a few unsuccessful page moves. "Pajamas" has been the spelling since 2007, so per MOS:RETAIN, which says, "use the variety (of English) found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety," AmE spelling is here to stay. "Pyjamas," in any case, is the British English spelling, not the Indian English, which would be "night suit!" The apparel/attire/article (of clothing) of interest here is the two-piece sleepwear, not the bottom only. The OED defines the article of clothing to be: "Originally: loose trousers, usually of silk or cotton, tied round the waist, and worn by both sexes in some Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Subsequently also: nightclothes consisting of loose trousers or shorts and a jacket or other top (now the principal use)." So, again, nowhere in South Asia would anyone be referring to this sleepwear of principal interest "pyjamas, paijamas, or pajamas;" they would be calling it "night suit," which is applied to pajamas worn by adults as well. South Asia, especially India, no longer has a cultural "right of first refusal" for the name. I've heard all the arguments before. This is a nonstarter, befitting a speedy close. Sorry to be blunt. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is evidence that the canonical spelling in South Asian (Indian) English is a two-word expression beginning with "N." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read the other comments. Johnbod, in particular, has a pertinent point about the disconnect between the spelling deployed (if I may use that word as suggestive of previous edit wars) in the lead and the rest of the article. A reason is that editors will often introduce text in the main body, but not integrate it with the lead. India-POV editors, in particular, have been adding "originating in the Indian subcontinent." They have been adding "Hindustani," a dated term, and "Hindus and Sikhs."
But the fact is that stitched clothes, including pajamas, saw wide use in South Asia only after the invasion and eventual conquest by Persian-speaking Muslims of Central Asia ca 12th-century CE. Until then, Indians had worn only draped (and knotted) clothes. ( An earlier conquest of northwestern South Asia by the Central Asian (but non-Muslim) Kushans did introduce a style of trousers, but its use was limited to a section of northern India's elite; the wider use came after the Muslim conquest.) In other words, the article of clothing is originally Central Asian (but inadequately documented), later (and majorly) South Asian, and eventually worldwide as a consequence of the British rule in South Asia. The OED says, "Origin: Of multiple origins. Partly a borrowing from Urdu. Partly a borrowing from Persian. Etymons: Urdu pāy-jāma; Persian pāy-jāma." I keep reverting the text in etymology to an NPOV version, but the India-POV keeps reappearing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fowler&fowler, note that you were the one who properly added the Hindustani and Persian etymology to the article, which is the neutral term to use here (Hindi-Urdu could be used as well). We are not going to slant this article in favour of communal viewpoints by excluding the other standard register of Hindustani and excluding other religious communities who wear pajamas. I have access to plenty of other references that buttress the facts in that section too that will make introducing communal POV into that section difficult. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "night suit", there are quite a few articles which refer to them as "pyjamas" as well. Either way, the point is that when the word itself is invoked (even in Indian English), it's spelled "pyjamas", not "pajamas". Nevertheless, I agree with @Llew Mawr's point that there is already a separate article about general Nightwear, so the point about strong ties for this topic to India stands. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:RETAIN. The article has been stable on American English for several years. IMO, just because something was invented in one country, WP:TIES does not automatically apply if it is now popular worldwide. If a subject is now worldwide and popular in other places, it really is no longer strictly tied to a particular country. For example, "Breakfast television" (Commonwealth English) is not the common term used in the country where it was largely invented (U.S.). Even MOS:COMMONALITY would be the better option in most cases when the worldwide common term is different from the term used in the country of its origin. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well MOS:COMMONALITY would favour supporting the move as well, as "pyjamas" is the canonical spelling everywhere in the world except for the US. Getsnoopy (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:COMMONALITY says using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable, not most. And use universally accepted terms, not a term that is never commonly used in one variety. So no.Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Bad rationale, and the article is stable at the American English title. O.N.R. (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose There is already existing consensus as to what variety of English should be used in articles. It has been already established that American English should be used in this article. Hence, we are not supposed to be changing that just because the topic is associated with some certain country or culture. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    because the topic is associated with some certain country That's called MOS:TIES, and it's absolutely a valid reason to change the variety of English. Getsnoopy (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For this topic, the historical ties are somehow less significant. Also, the article has been written on American English already because its scope is not limited to the country of origin. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with your argument on, say, the article on Nightwear, as @Llew Mawr pointed out. Most of the article's content references India or the garment's Indian origins. the article has been written on American English already because its scope is not limited to the country of origin Are you saying that the mere fact that an article was written in a variety of English that's not typically used in the country which the topic has strong ties with implies that the topic does not have strong ties? That's simply not true. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There still exists ties, owing to the fact that pajamas originated in India. But they have since been brought over into the West, and these ties are rarely discernible in daily life. The modern methods of producing them may have already changed so much because of Western influence. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Originating in India is a bad reason for a topic that has been completely assimilated into the Western world. No reason to change the status quo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm dubious about WP:TIES given the ubiquity, but the original article spelt it this way, so WP:RETAIN does apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to the first version of the article back in 2002?[1] The problem is that MOS:RETAIN says use the variety found in the first post-stub revision, not strictly the first version. Apparently, the article did not actually get tagged as a stub until July 2004[2], but it was still essentially a stub prior to that. In addition, the spelling change apparently happened in September 2004 when it was still a stub.[3] (I wish I could also cite the move log in this case, but that part of the log was not yet implemented in 2004, so I am assuming a rename/page history also happened at that same time). And since the article title policy was still probably in its infancy back then, I am not in favour of massive page moves to "correct" what should have been done if the 2020 version of policy had applied back then. To do so would bring instability to currently stable pages. Therefore my position above still stands in opposing this RM and thus maintain the current spelling that has been stable for the past 16 years. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME uses an 'a' at the front not a 'y'. At least in Philippine English. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the same Philippine English that derives from US English? And I hope you aren't seriously claiming that 30% of the English-speaking population of the world counts as "common", especially when 70% of the world agrees it's spelled "pyjamas". Getsnoopy (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. WP:COMMONNAME really isn't a valid argument here. The common name varies in different countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In Chicago, Illinois, it is illegal to fish wearing pajamas

[edit]

The citation link is to one of those silly pages with weird laws which are generally just made up or misinterpreted actual laws. That page cites nothing in support. Often they just make up scenarios like if it is entirely forbidden to fish in a certain place they will say it is forbidden to fish "wearing pajamas". While technically true it is a silly interpretation of the law and that is assuming the law even exists. Fort this reason I am removing the text. 188.76.175.230 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, There are a lot of sources stating this "law" but none have concrete proof that this law actually exist .... I agree with your removal. –Davey2010Talk 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pajamas?

[edit]

The article claims American spelling is 'pajamas' and that 'pyjamas' is (presumably exclusively) Commonwealth spelling. As an American who has a consiserably higher than average interest in language and spellings/etymologies, and who is acutely aware of most American/non-American variations in spelling, I have a great deal of difficulty believing that this is the case. I have never known this word to be spelled any way other than 'pyjamas'; maybe 'pajamas' is some dated variant? Or perhaps it is regional? I know that the word has several different pronunciations within the US, depending on the region.. I shall look into this matter, but I am curious to know what other native American English speakers think about this. (Note, native with a lowercase n - not to be confused with the American Indian sense of Native American). Firejuggler86 (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. - when I see 'pajama' the way that I want to pronounce it by default is 'puh-hah-ma' - like 'Bahama' with a P[reply]

Thanks for your post. Wikipedia relies only on reliable sources. Neither intimations of nationality nor solicitations among WP's volunteer editors for the purpose of sampling native speech are reliable. The reliable sources (in this instance the two definitive resources for American and British English respectively) are clear on the subject of spelling:
  • From Webster's Unabridged Online (subscription needed): py·ja·mas \pəˈjȧməz sometimes piˈj-, archaic pīˈj-\ chiefly British spelling of pajamas
  • From the OED Online 3rd ed. 2007 subscription needed: pyjamas | pajamas, n.
    • α. (In plural form) 1800s paunjammahs, 1800s paejamus, 1800s paijamahs, 1800s peijammahs, 1800s piejamahs, 1800s pigammahs, 1800s– pajamas (now chiefly U.S.), 1800s– pyjamahs (rare), 1800s– pyjamas, 1800s– pyjammas (nonstandard), 1900s– paijamas.
    • β. (In singular form) 1800s– pajama (now chiefly U.S.), 1800s– pyjama, 1900s– pyjamah (rare), 1900s– pyjamma (nonstandard).
For the other discussions on spelling, please see the archives. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or just above, where most American editors rejected (wrongly imo) the Indian/British etc "pyjamas". Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This native American English speaker finds your assertion that you have never known this word to be soelled this way extremely dubious. I don't recall ever seeing "pyjamas" in any American source. For the purpose of determining any regional variation, I am from North Carolina. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why pajamas exactly?

[edit]

I always thought majority rules, and the overwhelming majority of dialects in the anglophone world use 'pyjamas' over the strictly US 'pajamas'. The somewhat confusing oppose-support section that closed in 2020 would appear to be Americans comprising the notion that pajamas should stay. That is a majority as may be, but that would be a majority based on an incredibly diminuntive sample of those few Americans who happened to visit this page during the given period of time. To call 'pyjamas' the mere British version neglects all of the Oceanic, European and Asian countries that do not comport with the US version.

The oppose-support discussion raises the point that the totality of pyjama usage should be 'pajamas' because 'pyjamas' does not appear at all in the US, and some Wikipedia rule somewhere says the most common version should be used that is not entirely absent from one particular dialect. So 'pyjamas' is entirely absent from the US, but 'pajamas' is entirely absent in every other anglophone state. 'Pyjamas' arrived out of the British Raj, not Colonial America. Pyjamas is synonymous with nightwear in any country. In Australia, nightwear is something one would say without any perplexion from his surroundings, as he would by saying pyjamas.

The images depicting English and Indian subjects using pajamas is... I mean, what is that? It isn't respectful to those cultures for US subejcts to supplant their usage over the commoner international usage, especially connected to international examples. If one questions how respect is at all tangled up with mere dialectical differences, then surely it would not be disrespectful to change 'pajamas' in this article to a more commensurate usage of 'pyjamas'.

Many articles across Wikipedia I do have to groan and roll over for, as apropos science or maths, if an American wrote the article substantially first, then it is only fair his dialectical prerogative is eminent. In many other articles I have seen, such as for types of bridges, the article could commence with either American or Commonwealth spelling, and upon reaching the section focusing on the alternate region, the spelling coolly changes to suit it—e.g. a bridge that exists in the harbour of Sydney, contrasting a bridge that exists in New York City harbor.

If pyjamas are being described in an explicitly American context, 'pajamas' it should very well be. Why it must stubbornly remain 'pajamas' in all its current gross overreach is beyond me. Presently it reads that 'pyjamas' entered the English language from so-and-so, yet the article inexplicably utilises pajamas thereafter for discussion centred on every country beyond and including the USA. Wooblo (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the last discussion was only 16mths ago. There are wierd aspects to this case, as the text has consistently used "pyjamas" since the start in 2008. It might be worth trying again. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Waste of time. Won't fly. As I said in the last proposed move: "Pajamas" has been the spelling since 2007, so per MOS:RETAIN, which says, "use the variety (of English) found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety," AmE spelling is here to stay. "Pyjamas," in any case, is the British English spelling, not the Indian English, which would be "night suit!" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In South Asia, "paijama" has always been the garment (jama) of the legs (pai), i.e. trousers made of a thin fabric and held up by a drawstring. It was commonly worn with a kurta, a tunic, in the combination kurta-paijama. Well, it just happened that back in England, retired Company or Raj officials began to prefer a version of kurta-paijama instead of the long nightshirt a la Wee Willie Winkie, and—re-tailored in a different fabric—it became pyjamas. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pajamas&oldid=1193949636"