Talk:Petticoat Discipline

message: 207.200.116.6: Presumably you were just trying to remove the merge tag, however you are reverting my other changes too, with no given reason.
Regarding the merge, this is not about which content should be kept, it's about which should redirect to where. Feel free to Be Bold and make the redirection yourself - I haven't done it yet as I was waiting for opinions on whether the article name should be Petticoating or Petticoat Punishment. Mdwh 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge issue is now resolved - Petticoat Punishment is deleted. Mdwh 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of [[Petticoating]] and [[Petticoat Punishment]], and other changes 

message: Since I'm fed up with battling with unexplained reversions and a refusal to discuss matters here, even when it comes to issues not even relating to the content, here's a list of problems with this article:
* Claims without sources, such as regarding boys finding it pleasurable, and that women train their sons to prefer girls' clothing.
* Various POV/weasel words. That some women think such a boy is "more thoroughly feminized" may be strictly true, but how notable is it? (Some comments on babycenter.com does not constitute notable, in my opinion). Similarly with "According to practitioners of petticoating".
* Poor formatting/spacing, which is completely inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. (fixed)
* Continual reversion of putting the links in list form, which is completely inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia.
* This article could do with more sources, especially for some of the claims being made.
* Whilst I don't object to having petticoated.com as an external link, there is no need to list multiple pages from the same sites as links.
* I don't see why there's harm in linking to relevant wiki articles such as child discipline, spanking and cross-dressing - why the removal?
Mdwh 01:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: This topic fails to meet WP:V. Webster's doesn't have the word in it, hence it was certainly not a 'common' practice. The only evidence you provide is from a cross-dressing related site of questionable scholarship - there needs to be a little better citation here, thanks- as it stands, this article is a good candidate for AfD. Complaints of heavy 'weasel-wording' quite valid. While I do not doubt that this is a practice in certain sectors of the cross-dressing world, you have to provide more than what is here to convince the general readership that this was a 'real' practice; and not either fictional or an abberation. (I mean that in the sense of 'unusual').  Editing to this extent by anon editors also does not bode well for reliability; please get an account if you intend to contiribute extensively here & engage in debate. Bridesmill 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reponse. To be fair, I can see some argument for this being a valid article (e.g., "petticoat punishment" has 14,000 Google hits, "petticoating" has 11,700; it seems that this may have been something which happened and should be documented). Also note that Petticoat Punishment (which now redirects here) was proposed for deletion, which failed - although this referred to the version before the merge (e.g., ), which appeared to be written independently. But yes, even if there should be an article, there is a problem here with verifiable sources. I also agree that we appear to be arguing against sockpuppets. Mdwh 21:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From RfC

message: Wow, the sharks are really out on this one! Gpscholar 17:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the taste of essays in the morning. Dr Zak 15:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharks 

message: Okay, we have Petticoating, Petticoat Punishment, and now the new article Petticoat Discipline has been created, I'm not sure why. Petticoating currently redirects to Petticoating Discipline (where the content from here has been moved). Petticoat Punishment has now been replaced with what appears to be entirely new content by 207.200.116.196 - why do we now need two differently worded articles on the same topic? (And the new article is completely lacking sources!) Mdwh 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: See Talk:Petticoating for discussion on this article (the article was recently moved from there to here at Petticoat Discipline - I'm not sure if the talk page content there should be moved here?) Mdwh 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, I merged them, and merged the page histories. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Petticoating

message: Hello everyone. I oppose redirecting this article to Transvestic fetishism right now, because these two terms mean different things. Petticoating is much narrower and refers to transvestic fetishism in adolescent boys, with the strong implication that it is a sort of punishment or mock-punishment. Common or not in the real world, it is certainly very popular in erotic literature, particulary victorian era publications like the pearl. As such it has it's own peculiar motifs and motivations.  I think this topic would benefit from its own article (although the current one would have to improve substantially in terms of its emphasis and organization, I can try to work on that.) Certainly redirecting to a more general topic that's hardly more than a stub right now doesnt help matters. Deepak 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I redirected this to Transvestic fetishism because the article is an unreferenced mess. Reading it I don't even know what petticoating might be. Is it plain old crossdressing, men dressing in womens' clothes, or is it mothers getting off on their sons dressed up as girls or is it maybe men dressing up as boys that are dressed as girls? Or maybe it is the theme mentioned in Victorian erotic fiction? The article doesn't say. It even has difficulties distinguishing fact and fiction. At least Transvestic fetishism is well-defined. The redirect shouldn't prevent anyone from writing a proper article on "petticoating", provided whoever rewrites is has an idea what it is and can provide references that back up that it is what the author says it is. Dr Zak 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok fair enough. I can give it a shot. Deepak 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a warning - Petticoat Punishment has now been recreated (by Gpscholar) - I've redirected it to Transvestic fetishism (and I agree - if someone can rewrite this properly, they should do so and that would be a good thing, but until then it's better off redirected). Mdwh 02:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just an explanation - These redirects go to "Transvestic fetishism" not to anything on anything having to do with petticoating. The two articles cover two completely different topics. The "Petticoat Punishment" article reads fine as written, and there is no reason not to include it among Wikipedia's many other articles, many of which are much less well written and much less well documented.  Sometimes, these debates take on a life of their own and continue long after their usefulness has been exhausted, rational argument giving way to cliques and unnecessary and unforunate bickering and egoistic attempts at self-gratification.  Hopefully, the issues raised on this talk page can be decided not by warring users but by senior Wikipedian directors.  I recreated this article because I believe that it deserves a fair hearing on its own merits rather than being deleted because a few people don't like its contents.  Of course, I am willing to abide by the majority decision of Wikipedian brass, but let's settle these issues rationally rather than emotionally and professionally rather than personally. 207.200.116.136 02:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you considered the legitimate concerns that people have about this article? Have you read the policy on reliable sources? Or perhaps, do you just not care and you prefer to complain? Dr Zak 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Anon; you are the author, so that is hardly an unbiased opinion on how well  written (or not) the article is. Please do not take our criticism as a total diss - it is in effort to make a reasonable, accurate, credible article - this has nothing to do about 'liking the contents', and everything to do about being scholarly. Bridesmill 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect 

message: I think that mediation may be required, though I know there's a huge backlog of requests.  Please see User_talk:Gpscholar#Petticoating_and_Petticoat. I know nothing about this, but I do know when an article has been warped beyond common usage. Shenme 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use 4 tildes (~~~~) to sign your comments. Mdwh 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petticoating and [[Petticoat]] 

message: I don't know if anyone's still watching this, but we now have the new article Pinafore eroticism, as well as someone trying to insert the content into Pinafore. Mdwh 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just mention that I stumbled upon the other page by chance and came to pretty much the same conclusions as Mdwh, before reading any of this (I left my notes in the discussion section over there). Xarmy of meX (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pinafore eroticism]]