Talk:Yoga pants/Archive 1

Bizarre Factoid
Currently this article contains the sentence: "Other types of yoga pants can be made out of cotton which was discovered in a cave near Tehuacán, Mexico, and dates back to around 5800 BC."

I'm a little confused at this. Is it saying that cotton was discovered in a cave, that the fact that yoga pants can be made out of cotton was discovered in a cave, or that yoga pants can be made out of some cotton found in a particular cave? All of these except the last seem incorrect, and the last seems irrelevant. --Earin (t) 17:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Circular explanation
The article contains the phrase "Many schools have already banned the wearing of these pants, because they do not follow the dress code." If the pants did not follow dress code, weren't they already banned? Or did they ban them using some other disciplinary instrument? Mattman00000 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

removed irrelevant lawsuit info that read like an ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3032:C3C0:6C84:74E3:B323:5D9F (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuit Section Tone
This reads like it was written from Lululemon's press release. - unsigned

overly detailed and citation issues
This page has too many obscure and irrelevant details. Also, there's a glut of citations, many of which are coming from style/fashion blogs. Battleghost (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition of "Controversy" section & other edits
These edits were made as part of an assignment for a college junior composition class.

The controversy section and subheadings were added to highlight the public response to the growing popularity of wearing yoga pants in public settings. Individual school instances were added to highlight that the bans are nationwide and to demonstrate the fact that the discrimination against female student's choice of clothing perpetuates rape culture and gender policing. Also, the addition of the "business" subheading was added to show that wearing yoga pants outside of the gym is not limited to young, school-aged females. Other edits included removal of "Brands" section due to the impossibility to list each store and designer, therefore seemed biased and promotional. Sentences with irrelevant information were also deleted. Addition of sentences regarding statistics of yoga pants growth were also made.

Apanas13 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved a paragraph from the "Public school bans" section into the "Controversy" section, because I think it fits better there. Elsewhere, I removed the image of a woman wearing Lululemon yoga pants for two reasons: 1) the woman is ridiculously skinny, so the image perpetuates unrealistic body goals for women, and 2) this topic doesn't need to serve as an advertisement for Lululemon.

Bongoramsey (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request
Please restore this revision. The person who undid it has not explained its flaws. Also, there is no evidence that yoga pants are actually worn for sexual titillation. They are worn for physical comfort. 134.154.255.38 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It was undone per WP:BANREVERT. I will remove the category though as there's no evidence that it's part of a fetish.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Brands
The section on brands has a major source problem. The source used for the number of brands and stores doesn't claim to be at all comprehensive, it just says that's how many they looked at for the analytics in the blog post. I'm skeptical that Indix is a reliable source anyway. Because the number of brands is at least over a hundred, mentioning any specific brands seems totally arbitrary without reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources. The means that shopping links -the majority of sources- are right out. Fashion slide shows and other listicles like this seem way, way too weak as well. The rest are just blogs, so I'm deleting the section. While there is some value in listing specific brands, there has to be a way to incorporate this info that doesn't run against WP:NOTADVERTISING like this. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone's added another section on brands since that time, and it suffers from the same problems. There were four sources, and I've removed one because it looked like spam. The remaining sources list at least 9 brands that aren't mentioned in the section. There's no indication of what makes the 9 listed brands "major". I found two articles from Business Insider and Fortune, respectively, that might be more objective, but I don't want to list 20 brands. I would still favor removing the whole section. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing.
Are seven sources really needed on the Intro for the article? We know this clothing article is considered casual wear, why have seven references confirming this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.86.238.217 (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 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: not moved. Clear consensus this move won't happen, so WP:SNOW closure is appropriate.  Calidum   01:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yoga pants → Yoga trousers – Per WP:CONSISTENCY with trousers, after all. PPEMES (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per primary usage. Gsearch for "yoga pants" gives 42.5M hits, while "yoga trousers" returns 774k, and many of those results are either about dress athletic wear, or actually don't contain the word "trousers" at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common name and overwhelming use in page references. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the above. There's really no other term for this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This seems like a WP:ENGVAR issue. Since there are also other grounds expressed for opposing, as above, the consistency argument doesn't seem sufficient to overcome the desire to allow different articles to be written in different varieties of English. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, which is really all that needs to be said to shoot down this proposal.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:48, 8 May 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.