Talk:Pannier

Panniers in clothing
Whilst mention is made of a style of dress in the 18th century, no further information is listed here. Would someone like to add some information or perhaps a link to the section on Rococo Dress? There was also a revitalisation of this style in the 1920s. Thank you - Nicole A. Jenkins (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored deletions
I've restored much of the text deleted in this edit. I understand that the section is lacking in citation. Many of the facts here are "common knowledge" type facts that one learns through use and experience, so seeking a good citation will take time. I believe that deleting the bulk of an article as "minutia" on a topic involving luggage is a bit hasty. Two of the most important considerations of any type of luggage are its use and its construction. So we should probably have bits in the article about how it is used and constructed. The restored text is not a trivia section which could be removed after incorporating necessary facts into the article, but rather an attempt at fluid prose which discusses the topic at hand in a neutral way. Improve it if possible (completely rewrite it if you like!) but please do not remove it without discussing beforehand. Thanks! :)

&mdash;siro&chi;o 00:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Facts that one learns through use an experience counts as original research. Wikipedia entries should always be able to be backed up through a secondary source.  I do agree with you that such a large deletion may have been extreme.  I cleaned up the main "Bicycle Panniers" section; I think it reads much better now.  The "Construction" section is not very informative, but if you think it's important that readers know that panniers are usually made of nylon it's fine.  The section which I renamed "Purchasing" is really giving advice on how to choose a pannier.  Wikipedia articles shouldn't be giving advice, which is why I included it on the drastic cut.  So while most of the information I can see keeping, the "things to consider" should definitely be considered for deletion.


 * &mdash;In Defense of the Artist (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed that they should be backed up by a secondary source. Sometimes when a fact is "common knowledge" it just takes time to find a reliable source for such information.  Anayways, I think you are right about the purchasing section.  That information is intermingled with some construction information.  Now that you've pointed it out I've slightly reworked the construction section to include water-reppellency and attachment, which are important to construction.  I've completely removed the bit about purchasing considerations, and the purchasing section as a whole.&mdash;siro&chi;o 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pannier tank
Pannier tank is already listed in Pannier (disambiguation). Does it need to be described in this article as well? -AndrewDressel 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pass. I just edited what was already there... EdJogg 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Clothing reference
The section on clothing was removed for the ambiguous and subjective reason "didn't hold anything." Considering panniers were commonly worn for nearly a century and frequently referenced in eighteenth century literature, someone seeking information specifically on that topic and thus searching for the word "pannier" may not see the small "see also" reference. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, lists this definition first given it has been in use far longer to describe items of clothing than as a motorcycle accessory. Including a paragraph hardly adds any length to this rather short article and serves to expand assistance of the reader. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At the very top of the article, it says, "This is about a type of luggage. For other uses of the word, see Pannier (disambiguation)." If a reader doesn't notice that, and they don't notice the See also section, there is no hope for them. It makes no sense to include a section with an unrelated homonym solely for the benefit of readers who aren't paying attention. --Dbratland (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dbratland.  That is precisely what disambiguation is for.    Montanabw (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Helicopter pans
The side litter carriers on choppers (like the two on the M*A*S*H helicopters) are called panniers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.128.48 (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2019

 * 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: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

– A WP:NOPRIMARY situation, since views for the container are almost the same as the clothing. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pannier → Pannier (luggage)
 * Pannier (disambiguation) → Pannier


 * Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose - On the whole it looks like the bag |Pannier_(clothing) has the edge. Ibadibam (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the one, sometimes the other. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since that tool has been tracking page views, 1 July 2015, until 14 November of this year, Pannier has had a mean of just under 109 daily views, and had greater views than Pannier (clothing) on 1,085 days. Adjusting for disambiguation traffic, it had just over 106 mean daily views and led in traffic on 1,033 days. In that same period, Pannier (clothing) has averaged just over 95 daily views and had a greater number of views on 495 days. It looks to me like a lot of the views for Pannier (clothing) are in a handful of major spikes, which I'd guess came from trending articles or television coverage rather than enduring popularity. Based on this analysis, I am changing my comment to an oppose !vote. Ibadibam (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the views provided by Ibadibam (172,630 v 150,754 for the clothing), clearly no primary topic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The daily average views since 2015 for Pannier is 109, and Pannier (clothing), 95. In what universe is 15% more "almost the same"? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY do not say 'merely count page views and call it a day'. It says, "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." It says to pay attention to what a general audience is most concerned with. Extinct fashion oddities and a kind of steam locomotive are hardly more relevant to general audiences than an everyday object used in every corner of the globe today and for the foreseeable future. What enduring significance does Pannier (clothing) have? At least a wimple was in widespread everyday use by many classes, in many countries, across many centuries. This is a fashion fad among a few European countries that came and went for 100, maybe 200 years, and was restricted to the upper classes, and even then only in formal wear. Why would we force anybody looking for this subject to pause at a dab page listing such obscure historical oddities? What's the purpose of that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly the pageviews speak to the clothing having some sort of significance, otherwise people wouldn't bother looking it up. 15% is fairly negligible difference by pageview standards, with many primary topics having many times the pageviews of everything else.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In this universe 109 and 95 are almost the same. The ratio is close enough to 1.0.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the 109-95 basketball game writeups I found described it as a close game. If it was an election it would be 53.4-46.5%, or a 6.5 point margin. Far wider than the last 8 presidential popular vote margins. If my car fuel gauge was off by 15%, I'd have something done about it. On a restaurant bill, 15% is the difference between a decent tip and getting stiffed. What can you point to where these proportions are considered "almost the same"? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Panniers are more than an "extinct fashion oddity". Fashion works in cycles. Colin M (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's fashion and then there's clothing. Panniers aren't part of any culture's current clothing practices, regardless of what the occasional high-fashion designer is putting on the runway to grab attention. Ibadibam (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but so? Fashion is a topic relevant to an encyclopedia. The simple fact that the article gets 100 views every day shows that panniers are of interest to contemporary readers, even if they're not wearing them when they go out to pick up milk. Colin M (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The clothing feature has major enduring significance, and the pageview margin is razor-thin, nothing like the "much more likely than any other single topic" required of WP:PTOPIC. Colin M (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The container is the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2019 (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.