Template:Did you know nominations/Hotpants


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hotpants

 * ... that hotpants (pictured) were originally short shorts made from luxury materials such as silk, brocade, and fur? Source: )
 * ALT1:... that hotpants (pictured) may be worn by men as well as by women? Sources: , ,
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Barn the Spoon
 * Comment: I've been resisting doing DYK for a while, but thought I did a OK job expanding this redirect (started on 21st, it is now 25th, so well within time range). Also, the image is lovely and refreshingly tasteful and non-sleazy (especially given the subject matter, and most of what else is on Commons for "hot pants" (shudder)). If ALT1 is used, I would suggest using the man wearing pink hotpants instead, to underline the point (and also annoy those who whinge bitterly if they think there ought to be a barely-clothed woman on display.) But I digress. I need to do a review of another DYK, but wanted to get this up well within time.

Converted from a redirect by Mabalu (talk). Self-nominated at 17:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC).


 * The second source does say "there is evidence that Hotpants were marketed to men as well...", the third source says "for women, men, and little girls" in the second paragraph. I'm on a mobile so the first source is difficult to read as you can't really zoom in on mobile view but I think you'll find what you are looking for on page 168,second column. Mabalu (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg stand corrected on sources 2 and 3. I apparently, did not read 2 closely enough, and the find function of my browser helped me miss the correct instance of the word "men" in three.  I had previously "carefully" read page 168 of source 1 and did so again, but still do not see the reference.  However, given what I found in sources 2 and 3, I find my objections neutralized. Shortsword (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at it on a PC, the info is pretty good - I used it before as a reference on Shorts so had forgotten how detailed it was. If you read down the second column on page 168 - you may need to zoom in - you will find what you're looking for between "Fast food" and "McGovernomics". I'd better add to the article, now I've re-read what it actually says. Mabalu (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at it on a PC, the info is pretty good - I used it before as a reference on Shorts so had forgotten how detailed it was. If you read down the second column on page 168 - you may need to zoom in - you will find what you're looking for between "Fast food" and "McGovernomics". I'd better add to the article, now I've re-read what it actually says. Mabalu (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)