Talk:Pajamas

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  PJs vs Pajamas in image captions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you  What kept you so long? The article has needed your input for years.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: She did the drawings, and also watercolors, and others converted them to lithographs, I think.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In Chicago, Illinois, it is illegal to fish wearing pajamas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why pajamas exactly?